“There is no other way to interpret Facebook’s privacy invading moves over the years—even if it’s time to simplify! finally!―as anything other than decisions driven by a combination of self-serving impulses: namely, profit motives, the structural incentives inherent to the company’s business model, and the one-sided ideology of its founders and some executives. All these are forces over which the users themselves have little input, aside from the regular opportunity to grouse through repeated scandals.”
Original source: Why Zuckerberg’s 14-Year Apology Tour Hasn’t Fixed Facebook
‘But despite simple perception of them all as “tech” companies, their core revenue sources are clearly different. And those distinctions suggest ways people can understand and respond to anxieties about their growing economic and cultural influence.’
Original source: ‘Big Tech’ isn’t one big monopoly – it’s 5 companies all in different businesses
“This Cambridge Analytica scandal proves that Facebook ought to be heavily regulated, and that’s not good for Facebook’s bottom line.”
Original source: Facebook Stock Plunges
“At the core of almost everything negative about the smartphone era is the attention economy business model, which depends on getting a massive number of people to use free products for as many minutes as possible. This model, of course, dates back to the beginning of mass media, but the combination of big data and machine learning techniques, along with careful attention engineering, has made many modern apps too good at their objective of hijacking your mind — leaving users feeling exhausted and unnerved at their perceived loss of autonomy.”
Original source: On the Rise of Digital Addiction Activism – Study Hacks – Cal Newport
“The publishers are obviously enhancing the value and integrity of Facebook through their news and content but are not being adequately rewarded for those services,” Murdoch wrote. “Carriage payments would have a minor impact on Facebook’s profits but a major impact on the prospects for publishers and journalists.”
Original source: Rupert Murdoch says Facebook needs to pay publishers the way cable companies do
Some intersting history of how Facebook grew users. Of course, this the case study is for a free service, that focuses on a high volume of users. I.e.: not an enterprise sales business that charges $3m+ per user-cum-customers.
Contextualizing aside, there’s some good product thinking:
Better know what your product is good for:
Knowing true core product value allows you to design the experiments necessary so that you can really isolate cause and effect.
Getting people to realize your product is useful, understanding and the wanting the value-prop:
“Once you understand core product value you can create loops that expose that over and over again. You have to work backwards from ‘what is the thing that people are here to do?’ ‘What is the A-ha moment that they want?’ and giving that to them as fast as possible.”
The clock is ticking, the cash is burning:
“Startups only have so many opportunities to run an experiment in the product, and they’re also time bound by the cash they have in the bank. With that said you need to run experiments that matter.” “Experiments that count when you are using smaller samples have to be incredibly thoughtful.”
You’d think that would favor large organizations who have the scale of people, time, and money…if only they can switch over to this way of thinking.
Your best customer is one you already have:
Retention is the single most important thing for growth.” “Retention is the number one thing we focus on at Facebook. You can’t trick users into doing that.”
There is a News Feed that displays articles, updates or comments relevant to certain teams or, perhaps, to the entire company. The now-familiar Live service can be used to broadcast corporate communications, such as a presentation by the CEO. Workers can communicate in real time using a version of Messenger. They can also create private Groups for brainstorms or discussions—as of this week, groups can include colleagues or business partners that aren’t official employees. That feature wasn’t previously available until today’s launch.
It looks like $1-3 a month (I’m guessing). I mean: I’ve never used an intranet site that was worth a damn. You could do worse than using Facebook for it: it seems to do a damn fine job as the intranet for people’s lives.
What’s always mattered in these things is that the vendor (here, Facebook) keeps up with it over the course of 5-10 years. Otherwise, it become a big hunk of crap you can’t escape that never evolves. Google Apps (or whatever it’s called) is like this: aside from GMail, it never seems to evovle at a pace that makese sense, so you’re left with the ideas of 2-3 years ago. So, the question becomes: is Facebook in this for the long-haul?
Source: Facebook at Work: Workplace by Facebook Is Now on the Clock