Seems like Facebook is teh new evil. The new Microsoft of the nerd epic. The biblical mark of the beast, the Windows-logo, has been replaced by Facebook’s like-button on a website.

But seriously. Facebook’s grab of their users is getting quite out of hand. Exposing more and more of stuff that could be argued to be personal information, pimping that stuff to other sites and companies… it’s not cool and it’s pretty dark in the grey area of abusing their users’ respect. The “evolution” of Facebook’s concept of privacy was best illustrated by Matt McKeon’s neat infographic.

You know these pics as lolcats, but majority of Facebookers just think they are cute.

If you look at the new things Facebook is developing it’s easy to start thinking what are the real benefits to users? It’s all just exploitation. But that’s just the business model for web 2.0 social. Companies are willing to pay a lot to know what their target demographics like and how they behave and lots of other metrics that supposedly make their marketing more effective. They also want to have “presence” on the “social”. I have no experience with marketing industry so I’ve no idea how well this works.

Many internet pioneers were against any first legislation involving Internet, because the Internet was somehow “different”. They felt that these laws would restrict the “freedom” of the whole Internet. Yet, it’s clear that at least our consumer protection and privacy laws are not good enough. The German Federal Minister of Consumer Protection sent a letter to Facebook where her threat was that she’d get out of Facebook if Zuckerberg and his company don’t start to respect users’ privacy more. Seriously, is this how toothless even European consumer protection agencies are against Facebook’s rampant power grab?

One of the weaknesses of Facebook is that they’re centralized. This is why Google, Yahoo et al are working hard on social web that’s distributed. The problem is that this is not a competition where the best technology wins. So what if “web industry leaders” are quitting Facebook? Most of the Facebook’s userbase don’t know who they are and don’t care.

The strength of Facebook at this point is that it’s what pretty much everyone and their parents know how to use on the web. Even otherwise computer illiterate people feel at home with Facebook, like the ReadWriteWeb’s article on Facebook that people ended up when they searched for “facebook login” on Google demonstrated. Whatever the pioneers, early adopters, or any other web power users do to create “anti-Facebooks” does not matter, especially on the short term.

The internet has always been a scary place for newbies and it’s a shame how easily scammers can use Facebook as an attack vector. All the groups and pages that advertise free Farmville cash or an iPad for just doing these simple steps that compromise the whole computer… The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish these from the marketing agencies’ competitions on who can create the most “liked” “viral” astroturfed page and also by the simple fact that people tend to trust their friends’ judgment so these scams can get easily spread through the “social”.

From the web power users’ viewpoint the future is either a more interactive web, or the wet dream of every SEO and internet marketing expert – a web that stinks and where its users are just a crop for marketing analytics. We are idealistic and tend to believe in the power of technology, but the web is a commercial venture. Google isn’t exactly our friend (not even using the web 2.0 definition of the word), but it looks it is in their best interest to push for the same cause – a more open web.

It’s not that Google and others are doing this out of kindness for web users. It just makes business sense for them, Google makes money when more people use the web. And it’s not like Facebook is inherently evil – the exploitation of their userbase is a natural progression for any social network business, especially because their users are not willing to pay for the service in any direct fashion.

We can’t bluff Facebook about quitting our accounts, because we are not going to hurt ourselves here and they know it. For its users, Facebook does add value. But, there are limits on how much they can exploit this fact. What Google and others are trying to do is make Facebook redundant, unnecessary – but they’re still far from this goal.

This is why I would expect more from the people we have appointed to take care of our personal information in the society, the different national and international data protection agencies. Not just empty threats like Mrs. Aigner’s.

2 people like this post.

Unlike

Maybe I’m a case apart, but I have become both a consumer of iTunes Apps and have recently moved between two countries, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Until recently, my account used for consuming iTunes content was Dutch. Now, I decided to switch the payment to a Luxembourg credit card, which required me to change the address in Itunes to Luxembourg as well.

And guess what, when you purchase an app in the Netherlands and then change the residence to Luxembourg, all or most of your content becomes invalid and gets deleted from the device you purchased it for. It doesn’t matter if the app was free or not, it’s just gone, even though your purchase history clearly states that you did pay for that app!

I have written to Apple to report this problem, but in the mean time I worry every time that the apps, in which I also produce content, may get deleted the next time I sync my content.

I’ve previously written about Media being the most “unflat” industry on our planet, but I really wasn’t expecting this to be the case for Software, which I thought was produced by hip, non-conformist guys like you and me, that sell to everyone over the internet and don’t care about national borders.

Can someone, an app developer perhaps, explain to me the reason for having a different license for different countries? I understand currency and language differences, but many apps are just in English and the whole of the EU uses the Euro?

If alternatively, you happen to know of a solution to keeping your apps while changing residence, please let me know!

All that aside, have a great New Year, everyone!

Vincent

Like

Unlike

I’m no lawyer, my only exposure extends to our company law activities at my workplace and past legal battles regarding farming ground and such—did you know that as a farmer you can let you cows graze on someone else’s lawn and if he doesn’t object, you can argue that you are the owner? At least in the Netherlands, this happened to my family once.

I think there is a certain danger here, if Apple doesn’t fight it, which it does, while Palm Pre continues to try and gain access anyway. It seems very shady on Palm’s side, but doe sit have a case here? I will discuss the strategic implications, as far as I can identify them.

Apple, as we all know, is a very interesting company. It is very vertically integrated, building hardware, software, and has a large influence on the connection between them (e.g. mobile internet), as well as the content provided on them (e.g. music, movies, the app store). Some would call this a monopolistic situation and it seems strange that it gets away with this, while Microsoft, with something that is, for now, as trivial as a browser, does not (in the EU at least).

iTunes is a powerhouse for media and mobile software, but this can be segmented into different areas and different phases. The iPod was released at the beginning of this decade (phase 0), shortly after iTunes, which then built up a power-position for music (phase 1). As the iPods became mobile computing devices, more content was being shipped via iTunes, such as video and those little games (phase 2). Finally, 2 years ago, the iPhone was released, with about a year later, the App Store (phase 3).

Music, phase 1 of ITunes’ power play, is the area which the Palm Pre (to my understanding) is impeding upon. You could easily see Video being the next thing to sync, though I’m not sure if this is possible now. Unless the iPhone takes a step back towards a more web-app-based approach, I don’t see the Palm Pre being a threat to Apple on the App Store front.

Apart from a phase-based perspective, there is also the matter of the lowest common denominator (LCD). Why do people buy mobile Apple products? I would argue that nearly everyone buys an iPod, because of playing music (and not so much video), while a growing niche segment buys the iPod Touch and iPhone for applications and games, as well as media. The LCD is music and it continues to be of strategic relevance to Apple, even with the hyping of their App Store, where Apple will continue to stay entrenched indefinitely.

So, from a strategic perspective, Palm Pre does not stand a chance. Apple will continue to make iTunes incompatible with each future version. Legally, on the other hand, I am not nearly qualified enough to make that assessment, though I think the “cow argument” may apply. If Palm Pre keeps trying hard enough, and continues to get a user-base that desires this link, there may be a legal argument towards loosening Apple’s grip on mobile media.

Since iTunes isn’t very profitable for Apple, I’m not sure what the implications will be for it, but I expect them to fight ’till the last breath.

Vincent
(Picture has no relation to this topic, but is of a cool movie nevertheless)

Like

Unlike

Read today about a new service in the Netherlands that is doing very well. It’s called doehetzelfnotaris.nl, which translates roughly as ‘Do-it-yourself Notary,” and has already attracted 13,000 visitors since it launched 2 weeks ago (for NL, that’s a big deal). By allowing you to automatise certain services, like preparing the contracts and wills, it claims to save you 30% of the price of having a notary take care of these things. Needless to say that during these financial troubles, people like it when they can save some money.

At our financial trust, I’m currently filling out a pretty long survey from the Luxemborg statistical office (STATEC) regarding our level of “internetisation.” It’s not easy being digital in a world where you often deal with highly sensitive data, sometimes coming from individuals who do not like dealing with you through digital means. The very word “Trust” in our company description, already forces you to ask the question: can clients trust us using digital communication?

The answer is in most cases No. Go to any bank and try to get significant things done and they want you to sign for it. Same with notaries (and doehetzelfnotaris.nl does not automatise the signing part). The financial sector is particularly stuck in what I would call “the old world,” though not, I would say, without good reasons.

My question to you is:

• is there such a thing as fool-proof communication, which cannot be falsified by any means?
• Is there a surrogate for being there in person and signing your name?

I don’t know of any, but I always assume that our readers are smarter than me.

Chime in, if you can.

Vincent
(Picture of a Robot Accountant. Waah!?)

Like

Unlike

This in reference to the accusations (1, 2) that Techcrunch made towards Last.fm, which have been criticised by many, not least by Last.fm and CBS itself. For those that haven’t been following it, accusations were raised at Last.fm for sharing (private) user-data with the RIAA, the US institution best known for suing old ladies for sharing music on their PCs. Recently, CBS/Last.fm issued another statement that these accusation are completely false. More recently, today in fact, news was released that the Last.fm founders quit. Now, I, as a blogger and not a media-person (there is a difference), don’t think that this last piece of circumstantial evidence bodes well for CBS/Last.fm.

Let’s first define media and truth as I think its relevant to the discussion. By media, I mean any publication that has it in their core-statutes (or whatever they are called) to inform the public as accurately and honestly as possible. This excludes blogs, in my opinion, as most of us have made no such agreements with our readers (sorry, guys!). Instead, some of us use it as a diary, others as a commentary, and others as a pseudo reporting service (on Tech IT Easy, we try to restrict ourselves to two and three). Techcrunch, on the other hand, while having started as a blog, can now easily be called an organisation reporting the news, with all the conditions that come with it.

Truth: in the media, truths are verifiable facts. You can verify facts in two ways. One, by quoting your source, preferably primary, short and simple. Two, by being a reputable source yourself. In other words, the Financial Times can tell us that an anonymous source has told them that Martians have visited the president and that statement will hold more value than if I told you that Martians have visited the president. Why? Because the Financial Times has more to lose than me (perhaps).

While Techcrunch is obviously not the 121-year old institution that is the Financial Times, it is in many ways it’s equivalent in this time of new online-focussed media. It has a lot to lose by giving out the wrong information. Techcrunch repeated its allegations several times even, without quoting sources I should mention, which leads me to believe them.

So why not trust CBS/Last.fm over Techcrunch? One, a corporation stating that it hasn’t done harm to its customers is simple self-preservation. Two, while I have been following Last.fm even before it was Last.fm, and while I actually find its founders very sympathetic, I think that they experienced the hypocrisy that corporations sometimes live by (it may be in their statutes even), and decided to quit. If this happened to my baby, I would quit too.

I am not saying that everything Techcrunch writes should be taken at their word (nor even the Financial Times), but as recent history has shown us, there is something wrong in the world of the music- and video-industry (you know, that other media-industry), and the only protection we regular people seem to have, is the media calling them out on the sometimes very nasty things they do. And while we should keep double- and tripple-checking the facts, if only to keep the Techcrunches et al. on their toes, if the RIAA is involved and a big company like CBS, I think I’ll side with public media.

End blog post.

Vincent

P.S. the irony: I think that CBS is also a news reporting organisation. However, in the case of the Last.fm “business unit,” it is not!

Like

Unlike

My sentiments about online media aside (I think it’s despicable the way media-companies treat consumers, particularly outside of the US), it has always bothered me to use Last.fm for a number of reasons. Here they are:

1. Last.fm, apart from being happy to pull my listening data into their site, does not integrate with my listening habits Whats.O.Ever. My method for managing music, perhaps determined by owning an iPod, is entirely dominated by iTunes and the usage of the device itself.
2. Last.fm does not play on the road (let’s ignore the iPhone radio app and that eventually all devices will be connected to the internet)
3. Last.fm does not acknowledge that I give different stars (= degrees of love) to songs (instead I have to “love” a song manually).
4. Discovering new music through Last.fm’s radio does not easily lead me to purchase the actual song
5. One cherry on top is that Last.fm now wants to charge me for using the radio, even though I add to it by playing my songs.
6. A second cherry on top is that Last.fm is now, indirectly through CBS, giving information about what we listen to and who we are, to the RIAA, a US organisation that probably also shares that information with other international organisations.
7. The only use Last.fm seems to have is vanity, in the sense that you can see what songs I loved (when I love them) and I can make pretty graphics of my listening habits (makes for an interesting poster).

So, as of this week, I am deleting my Last.fm account.

That doesn’t change that I am a fervent listener of music and it also doesn’t change that I believe deeply in the concept of sharing music. I like finding nice tracks to play at parties and equally I like finding tracks for some of my friends that I can only connect to online. There is no legal service that allows me to do this. As a matter of fact, in the Netherlands, I should even be paying a licensing fee if I play music in public or for too many people at once!!!

In comes Drop.io, a file-sharing service that recently added Facebook Connect as a way to share stuff only with your friends. Drop.io fills the void that Last.fm leaves in the following ways:

1. It has an integrated player that is very elegant and can also be accessed and added to via many different devices.
2. I can restrict access to my files to my Facebook friends only (evil internet lawyers can get lost).
3. It’s free for using 100 MB storage and charges a very fair $10 per gigabyte per year.
4. Any loss in statistical “vanity” data can be compensated by using iTunes and starring / sorting your files accordingly.

That’s it. Of course I will not be sharing songs that are copyright protected (and, of course, if we’re not Facebook connected, you will never know for sure )

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Meet AddressBookSync, a simple Mac-app created to synchronise pictures and trivial (birthday) data from Facebook with the local Address book the Mac. This is about as much as you could possibly get out of Facebook, without infringing on the terms of agreement that you agreed too (probably without reading) when signing up to Facebook.

And meet my other friend, LinkedIn’s AddressBookExport, which allows me to place all of my contacts into the, again, more useful Address Book on the Mac.

Now, I can take that address book and import it back into Facebook. But I cannot do it the other way around.

Maybe I’m being too European about this, but it seems logical that this should be a law. These are your contacts; there’s a mutual agreement between both parties to come into contact. That same agreement might not exist regarding me importing their addresses into Facebook (Still have to read those TOCs), but Facebook still allows it.

We all get why they don’t allow the opposite. They don’t want me to take my contacts with me to some other social network. Because it isn’t a utility like LinkedIn, but more like a gym-membership, with lots of fun activities to do onsite.

But seriously, shouldn’t this be a law, and if so, why isn’t it being implemented?

Vincent

Like

Unlike