Category Archives: Social Media

WhatsApp? Facebook’s Future

by on .

1.2 billion people and billions in ad profit already- how can you go beyond that? Stock-owners demanded growth. Facebook answered with their $19 billion purchase of the company WhatsApp to address an issue that will re-emerge later.

Here’s the $19 billion problem:  Facebook needs to stay relevant.  What better way to stay on the charts than to acquire a company popular in other markets (WhatsApp) that also stands a chance to add more people and help Facebook innovate?

Honestly, the only reason I know WhatsApp exists is because Facebook- a big name here- bought something that’s popular everywhere else.  But now that it’s here, let’s take a look…

It’s 450 million people strong with a faster growth rate than Facebook or Twitter.  It’s free the first year, costs a dollar after (likely to change after this purchase), and helps people avoid the painful fees of texting.  They can connect with nearly any mobile device and announced that it will challenge Skype in online calling.  Pretty nifty.

Considering Facebook’s attempts of mobile integration and its need to expand, it’s no surprise it gobbled up WhatsApp. This app has room to grow.  Facebook has 1.2 billion people.  That’s almost a fifth of the world population. How can you keep that many people aboard a ship being attacked by older people reducing the cool factor?  You get new people, new features, take away competition, and get ahead in the game of technology.

This $19 billion problem is greater than the GDP of over a dozen countries and can probably buy you a few islands to start your own nation. From there you can wage war against this injustice: WhatsApp cost 100,000 times more than your parents’ lifetime income before taxes, is 19 times costlier than Instagram’s acquisition ($1 billion), and could finance your presidential campaign to protest this madness.

 

 

 

 

Spotlight on Sochi

by on .

With the world’s eyes on the Olympics and thus Russia by extension, journalism’s searchlight has already rescued truth from beneath the rug. Twitter is just one good reflection of that in general.  All and all, the media has covered a variety of stories: the jailing of environmentalists, economic downturns combined with draconian spending for Sochi ($51 billion, more than any other for the Olympics) and criticism of Putin, how locals are impacted, the shoddy state of hotels mere days before the Olympics, crackdowns on protests, corruption, security concerns, the killing of stray dogs, and human rights concerns– to name a few.  Arguably, the biggest outpouring came in response Russia’s anti-gay laws and attitudes.

Russian officials haven’t been too pleased about the barrage of coverage.  Plenty have also said that the Olympics should remain a sporting event, not political, and that Russia can do what it wants within its own country.  I disagree. Politics are inseparable from the event and should be covered as much as the athletes and events themselves. I won’t deny that coverage has seemed to drag out our inner-Cold War mentalities a little, nor will I say that’s a perfect thing.

By stepping into the international eye though, one should expect all sorts of coverage- positive, negative, and otherwise.  One surrenders their right to privacy when stepping on a public, international stage. The job of journalists has always been to reveal problems and give people information difficult to come by, regardless of who it annoys. Attempts at suppressing will eventually fail. China was criticized last time around and the U.S. is no stranger to Olympic controversies.  Putin could not expect everything to be glorious.

That being said, so far Sochi has shown that the news and social media are capable of fulfilling a watchdog role anywhere.  May we see more of this in the future and keep that spotlight shining not just on Sochi, but wherever it may be needed.

Adding Paper to the Facebook

by on .

With Facebook turning 10 years old today, two things immediately come to mind: my age (twice that of Facebook) and how tiring it is to scroll through my home page.  Give it a little more time and a little more analysis though, and you suddenly realize the potential any small change on Facebook can bring- like with applying a news-based app for it called Paper.

Paper, an iPhone app released just yesterday, promises to supplement computer searching with human, editorial judgment in presenting news beyond what your friend had for lunch or what your aunt thinks is the cutest video of all time. Mini-magazines and articles are sprinkled through the news feed. It also provides an option to organize according to interests, appeal to the eye, and minimize distractions, according to its preview description:

Explore and share stories from friends and the world in immersive designs and fullscreen, distraction-free layouts. Paper includes your Facebook News Feed and sections about your favorite topics.

Early users described “the story-reading experience [as] rich and beautiful,” and done rather well for an “initial release.”  Some technology sites also gave it good reviews.  While I cannot comment on its actual impact since I a) don’t have an iPhone and b) it’s very early to tell, let’s look at the potential for a moment.

There are 1.2 billion people registered on Facebook and plenty of people without one know someone who spends time on it. For instance, while my father doesn’t see what’s so appealing about the endless stream of updates from people he half knows and content from pages he doesn’t, he sees mom and I engulfed in it.

Now imagine that 31% of them rely on it to keep up on current events, regardless of gender.  That’s nearly comparable to the 310 million population of the United States. If the app catches on for its smooth design and ability to minimize distractions from those friends that post 15 times a day (many people wouldn’t mind that), it’s still promising.  Over 100 million people use Facebook from a mobile device.  If just 1 of 100 uses the application over the default Facebook mobile app, that’s still 1 million people- the size of some small countries.

My journalism major-self is both skeptical and ecstatic. One one hand, even if news isn’t your first reason for browsing, there’s still a fair chance it can pass through the newsfeed when people share something of concrete value.  On the other hand, the New York Times acknowledged that it may appeal more to some left-leaning updates at first (LGBT, environmentalism) and that Zuckerberg wanted “the best personalized newspaper in the world.” It could turn into confirmation bias and send some people on the far-right screaming into the night (ha, that rhymed).

Above all of this though, is the mention of it being a ‘newspaper‘ and better quality articles that will hopefully provide better insight.  As said, actual newspaper editors are getting into a fresh new project.  Whether or not this succeeds is purely speculative right now. But even if it provides only a little change, a little more actionable information rarely hurts.