Posts tagged ‘Facebook’
On Your Mark … Get Set … GooglePlus
We’re off! Yes, we’re all on GooglePlus, poking and prodding. For me, it solves one of my pet peeves with Facebook: it’s easy to publish posts only to certain people with Circles. There is stuff I want to share with my adult friends, but not my teenage nieces.
Another advantage according to a photography buff friend is that photos are much better.
I would like to connect the items I share via Google Reader with Google Plus. If I could stream my shares into consummable posts like Twitter, I might not need Twitter. I love connecting with new people on Twitter, something I would never do on Facebook. However, I may do that on GooglePlus because of Circles.
But do connections want every type of content from all of their “friends”? Circles should work in reverse, too: I may want text posts from my co-workers, but not their personal posts. Likewise, I like hearing from my nieces, but don’t need the latest YouTube videos of cats, Bieber, or cats dancing to Bieber. (One of my nieces, however, just quoted Rush on Facebook and I am so proud.)
Life is never as orderly as we like, but increasing signal-to-noice reduces the chaos.
My Shiny New Toy
Jumpscan is a service which provides you with a QR code for your contact info
, including a vCard. While you could create a similar QR code other ways (for example, use goo.gl to create a code which links to your flavors.me page), Jumpscan is quicker to create and easier for contacts to download your information.
I’ve signed up, and am admittedly over-excited to distribute my new QR code. I’ve inserted my shiny new toy in the right-hand column here and also in my email signature (we use Lotus Notes, and it took me a hack or two to get it right). Despite a few kinks to work out in the contact form, I recommend you check it out.
It has me thinking about services LinkedIn should be offering – maybe more on that in a future post.
In other social media news related to me, Posterous, which has been at the bottom of my toy box since the spring, is being discarded and de-linked. I have accepted the fact that I am simply a fan from afar.
Why did I stop using it? Its utility as a blog for me waned because I ultimately wanted something more robust, which is why I came to WordPress. After I moved my blogging here, I was occasionally using Posterous to post a photo and brief commentary, but Facebook and Foursquare both fulfill that need. Oh well. You can’t be everything to everybody.
"It's me. My fault. But we're still breaking up."
Foursquare just checked in @ Big Threat 4sq.com/What2Do?
Since Facebook launched Places, its geolocation check-in feature, I’ve gone back and forth whether Facebook’s 
massive network means that independent check-in services such as Foursquare and Gowalla are toast. Yelp should also be considered among the threatened independent services. Ultimately, I believe they can survive by adapting their engagement model, although as I commit my prediction to paper web, I also find it easy to poke holes in my argument.
First, let’s review why they may be toast. As Michael Ansaldo neatly summarized in PC World:
Once Facebook Places incorporates enough Foursquare-like features — and it will — Foursquare users will start abandoning the service in droves to take advantage of the expansive network they’ve already built on Facebook
The heart of the problem Foursquare and Gowalla face is that neither their social networks nor their business programs have any unique value yet. Both services are only good for keeping track of check-ins and statuses and broadcasting them on Facebook and Twitter. Though David Berkowitz argues that there’s value broadcasting only to your Foursquare network to avoid over-sharing, Facebook could also launch a feature allowing members to check-in, collect points, but not broadcast to their network. So what does being friends with someone on Foursquare’s social network get me? Nothing unique. And users can not yet redeem the points they’ve earned for their check-ins for significant real-world rewards. Facebook is more likely to establish a vibrant rewards programs than small start-ups like Foursquare and Gowalla, thanks to its scale and resources.
This reminds me of Citrix and Microsoft in the mid-’90s. At the time, Citrix was a start-up with a very cool remote access product called WinFrame. The product’s existence, and therefore Citrix’s, was made possible only by Windows. This was when Microsoft was the biggest, baddest 500 pound gorilla around. And sure enough, Microsoft was on the verge of building its own remote access directly into Windows. Citrix, of course, is still around today and quite successful. They survived by cutting a deal with Microsoft allowing them to power Window’s remote access features, but limiting other products they Citrix could sell. Not only did they survive, but Citrix has innovated, diversified, and grown.
Perhaps Facebook will build certain features, but partner with the independents to round-out a more robust experience. Indeed, Facebook launched a Places API and announced Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp were “launch partners”.
It’s also instructive to examine threats from emerging niche players. While Foursquare and Gowalla provide the same experience no matter where you check-in, others are creating new engagement models. For example, SCVNGR has created a check-in game customized for particular locations. Other startups are trying to crack the entertainment check-in experience.
This where Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp may have opportunities. There are dimensions which could be added to the currently quite broad check-in experience:
- Do you need advice?
- Are you having a good experience?
- Do you need to find another store?
- Are you late or early and need to adjust your schedule and inform people of this change?
- Did you just arrive or are leaving?
- Are you actually going somewhere and want to let others know where you’ll be? You’ll confirm the check-in once you get there.
When you check-in, your app could ask you these and other questions. Then, it could offer you discussion opportunities and web content.
For example, let’s say I go to the Home Depot. As is often the case, I’m not exactly sure what I need, let alone how to use it. So, when I check-into Home Depot, it asks me what I’m looking for. I type in “porch screening” and returns links, including how-to discussions from across the web. It also finds a Facebook friend who checked into Home Depot recently who I might ask for a recommendation. At any time, I could opt to simply comment and submit. The app asks me whether I have been helped and, if not, whether it should send a tweet for help. It then calculates the distance between the Home Depot and my next location, which I’ve pre checked-into, and asks me if I want to inform anyone that I’ll be late. It also checks my Google Calendar, where subsequent appointments are recorded, and asks if I want to inform the friends on that appointment that I’m running late. It offers me to post a review directly to Yelp. And, of course, it offers me a coupon because I just seized the mayor badge from some other, less-hapless homeowner .
One area in which Foursquare, Gowalla, and Yelp may have an advantage over Facebook in creating new engagement models is agnosticism. For example, does Facebook really want to encourage discussions in other communities and not on Facebook? The flaw in this argument is the Places API they’ve already launched. But the purpose of the API may be more to demonstrate it can play nice for the time being.
The other advantage the independents may have is focus. Check-in usage remains relatively low compared to other social features, and, despite how innovative Facebook is, they may not want to invest as heavily in this area until the return is more clear. The independents will be forced to innovate as quickly as possible.
Trust is another bugaboo for Facebook, since they keep stumbling over privacy. Managing to whom your check-ins are visible will be complicated on Facebook, and that alone could scare off potential new users.
I use Foursquare, but am not a heavy user. I broadcast almost all check-ins to Facebook, but not to Twitter (see my earlier post about why I stopped broadcasting to Twitter). It’s simply a Facebook posting service for me, and if Facebook Places proves quicker, I will abandon Foursquare. This is why I rarely use Posterous anymore; I can quickly and easily post the same thoughts and photos to Facebook, a bigger network in which I’ve already invested my time. Hopefully, though, Foursquare and the others can innovate successfully and provide a unique service.
What do you think of their odds?
Android Update Addresses Pet Peeve
My Droid updated itself to Android v2.2 tonight. It’s a critical update, if only because it expands the number of home screens on which to organize your apps. Up until this version, it was limited to three screens, a major pet peeve of mine.
It ran out of room fast, because I wanted distinct areas for contacts, bookmarks, games, and for my most commonly used apps (e.g.: Hootsuite). One screen has spaces for 16 apps, fewer if you use Android’s widgets (mini-versions of popular apps, such as Facebook). The problem was exacerbated by the fact that you needed to use these spaces for basic functions such as the phone and the camera. In addition to two more home screens, v2.2 has relieved this issue by adding permanent phone and browser buttons that do not use any of your spaces.
The Droid now feels more powerful. This is a clever appeal to our emotional side. There’s nothing technically superior in this update (at least that I’m aware of, but I haven’t done any research). While there are significant technical upgrades included in v2.2, code-named “Froyo”, this has the most immediate impact on me. Before the update, I felt limited by the home screens. Now I feel that I have more control and more options. And when our devices are more powerful – we feel more powerful. How does this translate to business results? Loyalty, for one. If I was surveyed today, I would be more likely to respond that I would buy an Android phone again. That’s a nice return on this improved product feature. I suspect others will feel the same way – what do you think?
UPDATE: When I originally posted, I had not realized this was the much-discussed “Froyo” update. This upgrade is significant for other reasons beyond the home screens, including Flash support that will be rolled out in a second upgrade. My point regarding the added home screens, however, remains the same.
Superhero Apps Could Be Super Social
This week, I downloaded the Marvel app on an iPod Touch. Even on a smaller screen than the iPad, where it is 
earning rave reviews, the app impressively uses the medium. Dramatic touches are added by animated panel transitions. The ability to view either horizontally or vertically maximizes each panel, as does zooming.
DC, owned by Time Warner, released their version this week, which unsurprisingly does not differ much from the Marvel app because both were built by Comixology (it keeps crashing, so I have not used it much). Marvel is owned by Disney.
Non-publishers such as Comixology and Panelfly had launched their online comic book shops before Marvel and DC introduced these apps. But the publishers have actually been trying to make a digital business for some time now. For example, there was a Marvel section in the old AOL walled garden as far back as 1995. Dial-in speeds, alas, did not make for pleasant viewing. Now, with always-on fast connections and superior consumption devices, the market is ripe.
Both follow the itunes ecommerce model. Download the app for free, and pay for each comic (which are less expensive than the paper versions). A selection of comics is offered for free, and is regularly updated. The publishers seem to have struck a balance between the online and offline channels. Marvel is reporting that the app is driving offline as well as online sales.
Social components are still missing, though. Panelfly does have Twitter and Facebook posting capabilities integrated, but that is the tip of the iceberg:
- Integrated Facebook like buttons on issues and other components, too, such as characters
- Discussions, which fit the nature of long-running and intertwining stories. Even driving Twitter discussions – much like Lost – would be valuable. This could also help newer readers catch up on history – further engaging them in the comics universe. Links to other stories within a story would help in this regard, too.
- Share specific panels with friends, with likes and favorites
- Reading lists, which could organically lead to wishlists and gifting capabilities
- Online readers’ catalogs to allow fans to show off their collections. Integrate with Google Goggles to more quickly enable people to catalog their physical collections, which would enhance the sharing, enhancing, and ecommerce capabilities. The Marvel and DC apps already have recommendation engines, which would be enhanced by social graphs.
- Multi-user “What If” scenario creations (comic teamups and alternate story lines are the forefathers of mashups and remixes)
- Geo-location identification of app users at, say, a movie or bookstore
This is just my quick list. There’s certainly more great ideas, some of which are probably already being developed.
What’s really intriguing is the extent to which community will drive growth. This is a market which has historically benefited from a dedicated community, but one that has been somewhat niche in nature. If community has enhanced the comic book experience for its traditional fans, wouldn’t the same be true for newer readers? The app may become a gateway for more casual readers to join a more dedicated community of heavier purchasers or form their own community. Or it may grow the existing dedicated community by making it quicker, easier, and less expensive to follow up on a recommendation or interest with a purchase. But the key, either way, is community. Social components will accelerate online sales and transform the industry.
Why Twitter Should Re-Name the Re-Tweet
Why would Twitter tinker with arguably its most powerful feature?
Let’s face it, the name “re-tweet” is an idiosyncrasy – one of many on Twitter (ex: “hashtag”). Idiosyncrasies are hurdles to new users. And Twitter has an issue engaging new users. It needs to overcome these issues to ensure it remains as powerful a conversational medium as it is a broadcast medium.
So re-name “re-tweet” what it really is: “like”. The reason we re-tweet is because we read 
something we like. Instead of working hard to educate new users on a unique convention, let’s teach them to hit the “like” button. Easy.
There’s no harm following a popular convention, as YouTube recently demonstrated. And there’s no bigger rival to Facebook than Google, so if they can swallow their pride to adopt a convention that Facebook popularized, Twitter can as well. The change would initially create hassles for the Twitter community, but we’ve survived changes before. And it will be easier to manage sooner, rather than later.
This seems to be a relatively simple way to make Twitter easier to use and maintain the power of the re-tweet. And that will lead to an increase in engagement that will serve all of us better. “Re-tweet” needs to go.
My name is Adam Gross. 
Google +1 Takes on Like and Tweet
As with their other social initiatives, the introduction of Google’s +1 button has generated excitement mixed with head-scratching functionality questions. It’s another step in their ongoing quest to add the social graph to their ranking algorithms, originally based upon linking popularity, before Facebook can erode Google’s dominance by doing the reverse. I personally feel that Google has a more difficult task than Facebook. +1 does nothing to dissuade me.
+1 is a version both of Facebook’s Like and Twitter’s re-tweet: a way to share content you like. But at first glance, +1 falls short in two areas.
How to Use – Off the Website
Public / Private
Rewards for Using
Private
Public
Public
The first shortcoming is how to use it on Google itself. A search engine is by definition designed to help you find content and go. In order to click +1 on Google, you need to return to the search results and click +1. That’s unnatural. Especially when good sharing options are readily available on the content page itself (i.e. Like, Tweet, and every other social network under the sun). Adoption of +1 will depend on publishers adding +1 buttons to their content en masse, which they admittedly are inclined to do (after all, it won’t cost too much real estate, and the opportunity to influence Google search results is irresistible).
The second more serious shortcoming is defining exactly what rewards a user reaps by using +1. Sharing links on your Google profile page by itself certainly won’t float anyone’s boat. And, at this time, there’s no conversations or networking generated by +1. While there’s an obvious connection to Buzz that could be built, Buzz has its own issues.
So, Google remains as it was before: owning very nice discrete pieces, but without a clear compelling connection between them. The potential remains, though, and that will continue to get us excited for each announcement.
By the way, +1 has not been rolled out to everyone. You can to opt-in to use it at http://www.google.com/experimental/
Share this:
April 2, 2011 at 6:03 pm Leave a comment