Archive for April 11, 2012

I’ve been a bit buried in the last few weeks, and so CISPA has remained somewhat in the back of my head as something that I need to get to, when I have a spare moment. I trust you are in the same boat. And since that moment hasn’t appeared, I’m simply going to do us both a favor, and lay out what both sides are saying about the bill, to bring a little clarity.

Up first, brass tacks: CISPA stands for the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act,” it has a raft of co-sponsors, and is moving with decent alacrity towards passage. Its broad congressional support is being met with stiff resistance from activists (please never say ‘netroots’ again) using various methods, including the Internet, to push back against the bill.

Interestingly, the battle lines are drawn slightly differently this time around, with the likes of Facebook, and Microsoft (who was shamed into switching teams on SOPA), lending CISPA their John Hancock (and by that we mean endorsement; if you didn’t get the reference, go here). For a fuller list of firms that are backing the legislation, many of which you know and whose products you employ, head here.

Now, we can’t go much further in this post without taking a peek at what the bill does. Lifehacker, as always, is succinct:

If passed, CISPA would amend the National Security Act of 1947 to allow government agencies to swap customer data from Internet service providers and websites if that data is a threat to “cyber-security.” On a basic level the bill is meant to provide a means for companies and the government to share information with one another to fight against cyber threats.

That’s the main thrust of what we are talking about, data sharing. To get a view of what this means in actuality, we’re going to look at the pro-, and anti-CISPA positions, starting with those arguing for the bill. Let’s go:

CISPA Is Awesome, Will Keep You Safe

Fearing the same sort of backlash that brought down the unsinkable SOPA, congresspeople behind CISPA are trying to allay the fearful by being upfront. They’ve had a call with ‘Cyber Media and Cyber Bloggers’ (you can laugh at them for calling it that, welcome to 1995!), and have provided numerous remarks on the subject.

The best article summarizing how the sponsors view the bill, or at least how they want people to perceive how they view it, comes from The Hill. I’m going to drag out a few of the important quoted quips here, but if you want the full monty, head to the link. Here we go:

Rogers stressed on a call with reporters that the direction House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) went with SOPA is “completely different from where we are [with CISPA].”

A congressional staffer familiar with the CISPA stressed that its requirements are “totally voluntary” and do not require private companies to share information with the military, as some have claimed.

“Nobody [in the private sector] … is required to provide anything to anyone else, or required to do anything,” the staffer said.

Just taking that at its face value, CISPA sounds like a darn good idea. As Congressman Rogers went on to say to The Hill, the hackers that the US faces in terms of security threats are not individuals, but “nation-states.” In other words, this bill is a requirement for keeping the integrity of the US infrastructure secure.

I’ll wander out a bit on a limb and assume that the idea here is that digital foreign attacks could come in any number of forms, and therefore to be able to shuffle information between ISPs and the government could boost response times. It sounds a bit hysterical to me, but I can understand the gist of it.

So long as what can be deemed a ‘cyber threat’ is narrow, and personal information is not disclosed except when expressly required to combat such a threat, this could be reasonable. However, in the eyes of some, both of those requirements are not being met, and that’s a very real issue.

CISPA Is A Disaster, Bring It Down, Legolas!

We now turn to those who view CISPA, despite perhaps having good intentions, as going too far, thus creating some rather unsettling potentialities. Let’s begin with how CISPA defines a ‘cyber threat,’ the situation that it is designed to help with:

‘(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

‘(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

Well, the first one fits what the Congresspeople were talking about. The second deals with the ‘theft’ of IP, and private data. That sounds like piracy to me. Of course, you might not read it that way. However, I’m not alone in my thoughts. I turn now to the lovely TechDirt:

It’s easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security—specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify. And since one of the recipients of the shared information would be Homeland Security—the department that includes ICE and its ongoing domain seizures—CISPA creates the very real possibility for this information to be used as part of a SOPA-like crusade to lock down the internet. So while the bill itself has nothing to do with domain seizures, it gives the people behind such seizures a potentially powerful new weapon.

The reps insist that when they refer to intellectual property, they are not thinking about media piracy or even counterfeiting, but about foreign-based attacks on domestic companies to steal their research and development (they tout examples like the plans for jet fighters). Unfortunately, the bill’s definitions create no such restriction, leaving the door wide open for more creative interpretations.

I have to admit that TechDirt’s argument is compelling. Especially given how powerful and well-funded the lobbies are that would push for just such a ‘creative,’ and therefore broad, interpretation of the bill. However, we have more work to do.

Earlier I mentioned personal data, and that it should be protected. For example, if an ISP noticed an attack that degraded its network, and wanted to share information with the government, personal data should be masked, encrypted, or otherwise not included or obfuscated. However, again according to TechDirt, CISPA doesn’t require any such thing:

[W]hile the reps insist that the bill only applies to companies and not individuals, that’s very disingenuous. CISPA states that the entity providing the information cannot be an individual or be working for an individual, but the data they share (traffic, user activity, etc.) will absolutely include information about individuals.

That crosses the line. A new conduit that can, under very broad and hard to stem circumstances, send large amounts of private data to the government is too much. What recourse does the individual have? Does the ISP inform them that their information has been sent? That it has even been stored for transfer? I’m not that bad a guy, but I certainly don’t want Uncle Sam digging through my Internet history.

Do I sound a bit paranoid? In a sense, provided that the government could only use provided data from an ISP for a, and I use the word again, narrow purpose. However, one final TechDirt extract drives what I feel is the final nail into the CISPA coffin:

[T]he government is also allowed to affirmatively search the information for those same reasons—meaning they are by no means limited to examining the data in relation to a specific threat. If, for example, a company were to provide logs of a major attack on their network, the government could then search that information for pretty much anything else they want.

And now they’ve lost my support. I’m all for things that keep us safe. CISPA on the other hand, even if written in good conscience, is too loosely worded to be trusted, and too free in consequence to be what it claims to be: a ‘cyber security’ bill. This law, if passed, has the potential to unmask your Internet life for the government’s perusal, because, essentially, they can. No thanks.

As always with posts like this, I have linked and extracted more than normal. I did so to encourage you to hit all the blue underlines and get more informed. This post is at best a primer.

AP

See Also

Here’s What Went Down When Facebook Acquired Instagram, According To ‘The Filtered Network’

Um, Wait — What Is Instagram?

Meet Instagram’s Youngest Investor, He’s 26 And Made A 2X Return In One Week

Facebook has been giving Wall Streeters a bit of grief these days. One reason we’ve talked about is because it seems like Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t care about his company’s IPO.

He didn’t go to the IPO “kick-off” meeting, after all.

Well now, the NY Post reports, Wall Street is seeing even more evidence that Zuckerberg’s priorities lie elsewhere. The word on the Street is that he should have waited after the IPO to make that $1 billion Instagram purchase so that Facebook would look more attractive to investors.

From the NY Post:

“People are wondering if [Facebook] couldn’t have waited until after the IPO [to purchase Instagram],” said one source, who declined to be identified.

Zuckerberg didn’t even inform Facebook’s underwriters of the Instagram until late in the negotiating process, says The Post.

Burn.

 

Can’t keep track of who’s suing who in “The Game of Smartphones”? This nifty image published by Forbes ought to give you an idea of the war being waged.

Why is this tangled web being woven in the courts of late? Here’s a hint: 2007.

What does a year have to do with this mess? That’s the year Steve Jobs introduced the world to iOS and Apple’s iPhone. That’s key because at the time, he said two things that directly impact the smartphone market of today. The iPhone has “Software that’s at least 5 years ahead of what’s on any other phone” is one quote from the iPhone launch, while “[B]oy, have we patented it.” is another.

Fast forward to 2012, or exactly five years later, and we see that competing platforms and manufacturers have caught up in many ways. And as the different smartphones gain some semblance of parity, the battle shifts from product comparisons to product patents and protection.

In my mobile predictions for 2012, I said the patent wars would get worse. Given that some of these suits started one or two years ago, it’s hard to define the situation now as “worse” or “better”, but the idea of patenting gestures and user interface elements still leaves plenty of room for the wars to continue.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro

Technology meltdowns are not just a theoretical concern. I know, because my own startup has been hit with them. I had one standing at the Geek Squad counter in my local Best Buy. On another occasion, I stumbled sobbing through a Walmart in Fergus Falls, Minn., at midnight – thousands of miles from home – because I somehow broke my laptop, and faced two looming deadlines.

Your company’s meltdowns will be different, but all startups are vulnerable one way or another.

Most startups have the ability to fix the small stuff, either on their own, with the help of expert friends or colleagues, or with a quick call to a local IT consultant. But at some point, you risk running out of either answers or time. Even if you’re a star coder, as your business grows there will come a moment when you’re going to need IT help on a full-time basis.

But how do you know when that moment comes – when is the right time to stop outsourcing your tech support needs and actually hire an in-house IT person?
I put that question to Greg Marks, an IT consultant and software specialist at O’Neil Software, based in Irvine, Calif., who has talked me through many an IT crisis. Marks suggests that you first consider the size of your company. He says, “Getting to 20 systems is usually a common breaking point when companies have to move IT staff in-house.”

Of course, the type of business you’re building and the nature of your IT needs will also influence that decision. As Marks explains, “Companies that rely on having a Web-based presence to get their messages out or sell products online likely have a greater need for an in-house IT person. If their websites go down, then they are essentially shut down. Having an IT person on staff constantly maintaining the network and site is vital because it prevents problems and allows for faster resolution of issues.” Also, he adds, “If your data is critical to your business, then it is worth having an IT person on-site to maintain all your hardware and software, as well as ensure that the systems are always backed up.”

Make sure to stay on top of how your IT is functioning. “Too often companies only [worry about] IT during startup,” warns Marks, “and then never engage with the outside contractor again, or don’t consider bringing someone in-house until a major crisis hits.” At that point, Marks says, it may be too late. “I have seen firsthand companies lose key databases and years of information because in-house IT services were never considered, or the IT person that they contracted with had no vested interest in the organization.”

Create an IT plan now, before a crisis hits… or your promising startup might never really get off the ground.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

1. Instagram Operated as a Nimble Start-up

Despite its meteoric growth, Instagram kept its overhead low with a total of only 13 employees, and its headquarters weren’t anything to brag about, either. Instagram is housed in Twitter’s old digs on 164 South Park Street in the trendy but still slightly seedy SOMA neighborhood of San Francisco.

More important, it stayed nimble enough to switch gears from its original idea of a location-based social network called Burbn to an iPhone app focused solely on photo-sharing. And instead of hiring workers or looking for revenue, the company was able to focus on growing the platform, its community and its aesthetic offerings.

2. Instagram Cashed in on the Mobile Explosion

Instagram’s timing was perfect, capitalizing on a historic increase in smartphone use. Starting out as an iOS app, it successfully targeted the burgeoning legions of hip iPhone-app users. It waited until Android reached nearly 50% mobile marketshare to launch the long-awaited app on that platform. Meanwhile, Instagram mostly ignored the no-longer-as-hot Web space, although there is a Web version called Webstagram.

3. Instagram’s Interface Stayed Junk-Free

Spend 20 minutes on Instagram and chances are you’ll be hooked. Beautiful pictures filtered through hazy lenses flow down an otherwise cold, glass screen. Instagram charges up a smartphone screen, filling it with emotion – not piles of distracting controls and icons. On Instagram, the image stands alone. Instagram successfully created a new world where images – not functionality – are the main focus.

4. Instagram Didn’t Get Creepy

Instagram managed to keep its creep vibe low. It doesn’t push users to post, to share or even to like – it is an open space, available to use as you wish. Stay on the sidelines and just observe – no one will ever know. Pop into a conversation and then quickly leave. You won’t be the only one: Instagram users are notoriously fickle.

That’s why Instagram’s easy follow/unfollow option doesn’t require a commitment as heavy-handed as “friending” on Facebook. Follow whomever you want, or just wander off and find new images to look at. You won’t accidentally see some old fling pop up in the Instagram stream, unless you purposely follow that person.

5. Instagram Married Visceral, Visual Communication Community

Instagram built a devout community based on a single idea: capturing and sharing beautiful images. Powerful images are inherently emotional – think about The Atlantic’s In Focus section.

Instagram gave people an easy way to connect around images, without the added pressure of complex social relations. Communities popped up organically around filters, around using too many filters and around just friends.

“There are a lot of things in [a] photo that someone can respond to, [that] promote conversation – then you get a wonderful interaction out of it,” says Piictu Community Manager Zachary McCune. “I hope that continues, because that’s what’s beautiful about being able to relate to photographs.”

A talented photographer can capture a single emotion in a square image, and make the viewer stop and feel something, if only for a moment. Instagram makes that moment easier to share.

6. Instagram Created a Valuable New Data Set

Every time an Instagram user snaps a picture, the app can capture a rich set of data, including location, time of day and other data points that can be associated with a smartphone’s sensors, explains ReadWriteWeb’s Dan Rowinski in How Instagram Will Help Facebook Monetize Mobile.

Instagram may not have been monetizing that data, but you can bet Facebook will. “Facebook is adding another crucial set of data points/edges to analyze people’s activity online,” says Pixable CEO Inaki Berenguer. “With Instagram in the fold, Facebook can now quantify what people are taking photos about based on the tags they put on their photos.”

7. Instagram Didn’t Worry About Making Money

In its short 15-month lifespan, Instagram focused on building its community, user base and functionality rather than worrying about how the platform was going to make money. By not chasing the dollar, it was able to focus on making the app better.

Of course, Instagram did pay attention to acquiring VC funding. Right before the Facebook acquisition, it closed a $50M Series B round from Sequoia, Thrive, Greylock and Benchmark, valuing the company at a sweet $500 million.

Figuring out revenue streams is now something that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and her team will have to worry about.

8. Instagram Embodied a Cultural Shift Toward Photo Inboxes

As the future of photo-only inboxes approaches, and more people use photo-sharing apps to connect with their friends, the need for more visual communication will only intensify. The idea that social interactions will increasingly become visual and mobile is attracting widespread interest.

“Increasingly, we see people using photos to share an experience with a friend, whether it’s to tell them what they had for lunch, show them a cool spot in their city that they found or to share special moments like birthdays or weddings,” says Pixable’s Berengeur. “The ultimate goal of sharing mobile photos is to broadcast your life to your friends instead of keeping a memory. The rise of smartphones, photo apps and social networks have made taking and sharing a photo easier than ever.”

What Other Startups Can Can’t Learn From Instagram

What worked for Instagram isn’t guaranteed to work for every startup. It’s always easier to look back and uncover the right and wrong strategic moves. Only in retrospect is it clear that Instragram did everything right. Along the way, there were plenty of critics carping at just about every decision the company made.

There is, however, one thing that other startups can certainly learn from Instagram: Timing is everything. If Instagram had come along six months later, things might have turned out very differently. Some other company might have already executed on its ideas and it would be the one preparing to cash some very big checks.

As App Cubby founder David Barnard says, “the average tech entrepreneur doesn’t have VCs working backroom deals to get a potential loss acquired by a profitable company.” Instagram may have planned this exit from day one (after pivoting away from Burbn, anyway), but the argument stands. Building free apps with no revenue in crowded categories is a luxury for developers playing with other people’s money. In successful cases, users still stand to lose by having a beloved service sold out from under them, and most of the time, investors stand to lose much more than that.

@drance A friend once told me as soon as you have $1 in revenue someone can calculate a value. At $0 the value is unlimited. 1/0 = infinity.

— Mike Rundle (@flyosity) April 10, 2012

Here’s the latest example: There’s a new app that provides “a special place for you to be the real you.” It’s for sharing with trusted people, instead of sharing everything with everyone. You can share different things with your family, your coworkers and your friends, “like you do in real life, in intimate Circles.” No, not Google+. It’s Everyme, another app joining the gold rush.

Mobile-first social networking apps are selling for about a billion dollars to the likes of Facebook these days. The social network landscape is more or less cemented in place, but that’s exactly the problem for the dominant players.

Quick little startups like Instagram are beating Facebook and Google at their own game. It’s starting billion-dollar bidding wars just so Facebook can keep one upstart out of Google’s hands or vice versa. After all, despite throwing countless engineers and dollars at the problem, neither of them can build a compelling mobile client of its own.

So Facebook decided to buy the leader for more money than Instagram could ever have spent building itself. Gosh, do you think Everyme with it’s “Circles,” just like “real life,” might get Google’s attention?

Playing The Lottery

The common thread between all these trendy mobile-first social networks – Instagram, Path and Everyme – is that they’re free and have no meaningful revenue stream. Instagram’s investors made a pretty good bet that it would someday turn a profit by becoming a Facebook feature. But building an app is an awfully expensive lottery ticket.

This approach is anathema to app developers who just want to build their own businesses $0.69, $2.09 or $3.49 at a time. News like Instagram’s $1 billion payday always meets with incredulity among developers. “Sure, people also win the lottery,” said Barnard yesterday. “Build a profitable business, not a lottery ticket.”

The Valley the Real World

“Building a business to be profitable is a different path than building to be acquired,” Barnard says. “Instagram may have never been profitable.” Self-sustaining businesses don’t have the luxury of burning cash to gather users and figure out a plan later.

“Building to be acquired might make sense in the [Silicon] Valley bubble, while playing with other people’s money,” Barnard says, “but I’d never risk my own blood, sweat and tears on something so risky.”

“I think that trying to emulate Instagram will lead plenty of potentially good businesses astray,” Barnard says. “In the real world, a profitable business is more attractive for acquisition, anyway.”

Lead image courtesy of Shutterstock, before being ruined in Instagram

“We allege that CEOs of the publishers bemoaned the ‘wretched $9.99 price point,’” stated acting Antitrust Chief Sharis Pozen this afternoon, referring to Amazon’s single set price. Citing from other emails in the Government’s civil complaint, Pozen continued: “One executive said that ‘the goal is less to compete with Amazon as to force it to accept a price level higher than $9.99.’ And yet another: ‘We’ve always known that unless other publishers follow us, there’s no chance of success in getting Amazon to change its pricing practices.’ Our complaint also quotes Apple’s then-CEO Steve Jobs as saying, ‘The customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.’”

During today’s price conference, Pozen was asked if she was concerned that adjusting the market conditions back to the way they were would, in effect, reestablish a pre-existing dominant player – in this case, Amazon. “This lawsuit and the settlements that we reached are about opening up the competitive marketplace and the competitive landscape,” she responded, “and not dictating a business model, but allowing competition to flourish. We have talked to many participants in this market; we have obtained lots of information about the marketplace. And here we’re taking action to stop what was an illegal conspiracy among five publishers and Apple.”

“Agency Pricing”

Today’s action by the Justice Department follows a March 2011 raid by European Union investigators into the offices of various publishing companies, presumably including the five named today. That action led to a series of private, class-action lawsuits in several states last August, as well as a civil action in U.S. District Court in Southern New York.

“As you can see,” Pozen stated, “we allege that these executives knew full well what they were doing: that is, taking steps to make sure the prices consumers paid for e-books were higher.”

Indeed, the five publishers named in the lawsuit did institute a so-called agency pricing model. With the typical wholesale model, a reseller purchases a product from its producer at a price point that’s a certain percentage (usually 50%) of its suggested retail (list) price. The reseller then sells it with the markup percentage of its choice.

Contrary to the wholesale model, the agency model has the reseller into an agreement to sell at a fixed price, with the implicit understanding that no other reseller would be allowed to sell at a different price. Pozen told reporters today that the five named publishers initiated this model during a three-day period in January 2009.

According to the original civil suit upon which today’s Justice Department actions were based, each of the named publishers followed up their agency pricing model with coercion policies aimed at punishing Amazon for its fixed price point. First, the original suit alleges, publishers actively “windowed” the release of their e-book titles to Amazon until a fixed number of days following the general release of the corresponding print editions. Then on a certain date following Apple’s launch of the iPad and its iTunes Book store in January 2010, the suit continues, publishers allegedly withheld up to 85% of their fiction titles from Amazon.

The narrow window of implementation – the near-simultaneity of their actions – may be enough to imply the existence of collusion between the publishers and involving Apple, according to the Justice Department. Indeed, a 1939 Supreme Court decision involving the apparent collusion of theatrical film distributors, establishes precedent for the notion that the obvious appearance of near-simultaneity for companies’ actions is enough to establish evidence of collusion.

Is the Evidence Self-Evident?

If the Government’s case boils down to the validity of a single argument, it will be the notion that the publishers acted together to establish a pricing scheme against Amazon, and worked together to buttress it with policies that benefitted a competitor. It’s this near-simultaneity which Pozen referred to during a press conference in Washington this afternoon, emphasizing the impossibility of coincidence.

But the case against Apple, specifically, may be harder to prove. If time is the only indicator of collusion here, then Apple and the other remaining defendants could make the case that the iPad release was a milestone date known to the publishers – as well as the world at large. That their actions centered around launch dates could also aid in the publishers’ defense, giving them a clear reason for their actions (which may not be illegal taken unto themselves) to have taken place within such a short period of time.

What may also aid the publishers’ defense, if it can be clearly demonstrated, is the possibility that they didn’t directly benefit from a price hike. In fact, technically there may not have been a hike at all: As e-book publisher Mike Shatzkin explained on his personal blog in November 2010 – long before any legal actions commenced – adopting the agency pricing model made publishers responsible for sales taxes. So perhaps the entire $2- to $3-per-copy price hike alleged by Pozen this afternoon, and perhaps more, may have been usurped in taxes. And more still may have been claimed by authors’ agents, as Shatzkin went on to explain.

This could eliminate financial gain as a motivating factor. In an open letter published today, Macmillan CEO John Sargent made exactly this case: “When Macmillan changed to the agency model we did so knowing we would make less money on our e-book business. We made the change to support an open and competitive market for the future, and it worked. We still believe in that future and we still believe the agency model is the only way to get there.”

With respect to the timing of his move to the agency model, Sargent said the idea came to him “on January 22nd, 2010 a little after 4:00 AM, on an exercise bike in my basement. It remains the loneliest decision I have ever made, and I see no reason to go back on it now.”

If a judge finds against the defendants in this case, is the Government afraid of publishers possibly retaliating by reducing the number of available e-book titles across the board? That was a question raised by NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams; and Pozen’s answer teetered dangerously close to the edge of making the publishers’ case for them – stating that companies will do what it is within their means to do to remain competitive: “This enforcement action is about opening the playing field so that it’s open and fair, and that competition can flourish at the retail level. We want that competition to take whatever form it’s going to take.”

---

Stock photo by Shutterstock.com.

“Toward a Simpler, More Beautiful Google”

With PR from any big company, but especially on the Google Blog, everything is embedded in the wording. The title of today’s redesign announcement seeks a “more beautiful Google,” not just Google+. This reinforces the idea that Google+ is fundamentally Google, and that this redesign is meant to bring consistency across all Google services.

Google’s description of the new design is full of cues like “flexible,” “make [it] your own,” “a design that grows.” The major change in today’s redesign is a customizable navigation bar on the left side. In addition to the built-in Google+ services, apps installed by the user will appear here. In some cases, hovering over apps will pop up quick actions. Items can be rearranged by dragging and dropping, and unwanted items (Games, for example) can be hidden behind a “More” button.

The one that can’t be hidden is ‘Explore.’ It concentrates popular posts, trending topics and hashtags, and a slideshow of what Google+ can do. It also promotes Google+ games on the side. The ‘Explore’ page is built to convey the sense that there’s stuff going on on Google+, here’s what it is, and here’s how to participate.

Google also makes clear that this design is flexible in order to give it space for “The Next Big Feature, and The Feature After That.” The redesign is not just about letting Google+ users control their experience. It’s about getting them used to change.

The expandable nav bar also invites users to install more apps. Facebook’s booming app platform has succeeded in keeping hundreds of millions of users on the site for longer. Google+ needs to open up as a platform as well to compete for that attention. But it has to release more of its API before that can happen.

People on Google+

Profiles and conversations have also been redesigned. Posts are now “cards” that stand out from the background. Activity on a post has been shaded and slid underneath the original post as a “drawer.” This third dimension centers the attention around the original content, but it also gives the conversation its own separate space.

Photos have also been extended to the full width of the feed. Google wants a sharing experience that “takes your breath away,” and it conveys that with all this visual depth. Google+ was a flat surface before, and the new shades and dimensions are the most immediately noticeable change.

Hangouts are the most undeniably wonderful and personal part of Google+, and they got their own dedicated page in this update. The Hangouts page has its own slideshow of Hangouts features, and below that is a constantly updating list of live Hangouts to watch or join. The controls to start your own are on the side. It’s great to see the best feature of Google+ get this star treatment. Even the deepest Google+ skeptics can be won over by Hangouts. Trust me.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Google’s design process is driven by user behavior. “One of the great things about working on products at Google is that we can try stuff out and launch it as an experiment and get tons of data,” Google Search lead designer Jon Wiley told ReadWriteWeb in February.

“As a designer, I feel very lucky because I have access to enough data and enough users that I can actually get statistically significant information on whether or not something should be this tall, or this tall, or this tall.”

When Google launches a redesign, it’s helpful to keep this in mind. It may drive you crazy to have to adjust, but Google makes these decisions by watching tens or hundreds of millions of people and optimizing for the way they use its sites.

The Scale of Google+

When Google announced its Q4 earnings in January, CEO Larry Page said that Google+ had 90 million users. That number has almost doubled in the past three months, and what it means is finally clear.

Early in the life of Google+, commentators disputed and argued about Google’s official usage statistics for the new social network. They couldn’t agree on what a “Google+ user” was. Was Google counting people who actually post on the site, or was it counting anyone who had connected to Google+, even if they never used it?

The numbers seemed too high to represent active users, so critics cried foul. But Google meant the same thing all along. Google+ is the new Google now, and any account that “upgrades” to the new way of doing things counts. They don’t have to go to plus.google.com and share to be counted. Google+ is Google’s name for people who use Google.

As more of the company’s hundreds of millions of users get pulled into the new, centralized, Google+-era Google, this flexible design will allow it to expand to suit more users’ tastes and preferences. The design still concentrates on expressing Google’s vision, but it draws more attention to what the community does there. If Google+ wants its 170 million users to come back and participate, this is the kind of user-centric design it needs.

The story of Instagram is insane. Only two years ago, it was an idea. That idea sounded good enough to land Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger $500,000 to launch what was then called Burbn, but it was still only an idea. Eight months later, Instagram went live in the iTunes App Store and its user base has been exploding ever since.

By August 2011, the fact that Instagram had been used to publish 150,000 photos was considered big news. Not even a year later, that number pales in comparison to the one now grabbing headlines: 1 billion. That’s how many dollars Facebook spent to acquire the mobile photo-sharing app, after only 17 months of its existence.

This post is part of our ReadWriteCloud channel, which is dedicated to covering virtualization and cloud computing. The channel is sponsored by Intel and VMware. Read the case study about how Intel Xeon processors and VMware helped virtualize 12 business critical database applications.

Corporate microblogging and enterprise social networking tool Yammer has taken some of its latest investment funding and made its first acquisition today: a small British software engineering firm called oneDrum. The idea is to extend its features to the desktop, improve collaboration and give Google Docs a bit of a competitive push too.

oneDrum.com has been in beta for about a year, and its features and people will be integrated into the main Yammer platform. The idea is to incorporate the various Office files that individuals work on into its collaboration network to make them easier to jointly author or edit.

Users will be able to see files that are organized by particular Yammer groups on their desktop, once they download a Windows (and soon Mac) desktop app. So every Yammer group becomes, in essence, a shared folder that is synchronized through their cloud.

There are other desktop sync services, of course, such as Evernote and Dropbox, but none is tied to a microblogging service. Each Yammer file lives at a unique URL where it can be viewed in the browser, followed, shared and discussed. “Following” a file will notify the user of changes. Users can also view a revision history or search the full text of the file from within Yammer. This is very powerful and promises to make collaboration a lot easier than it is now with Google Docs, for example.

Speaking of Google Docs, its users have long had the ability to jointly edit and comment on their documents. But the oneDrum software moves this to your desktop Microsoft Office files, which may make it more comfortable for many companies. The user doesn’t have to do anything special, once the desktop app is installed. As with Google Docs, character-by-character changes in the document appear in real time.

As mentioned, oneDrum has been in beta for Windows users, but starting today the beta software is no longer available (boo for Yammer). It will be incorporated into a summer release and rebranded as part of Yammer, along with a planned Mac release. Yammer also plans on moving all 10 oneDrum employees from the UK to its San Francisco office eventually, barring any immigration issues.

Jasper Westaway was the CEO of oneDrum. Ironically, when he first met with the Yammer executives about a year ago, the oneDrum demo was miserable. Obviously, that didn’t deter them from working together.

Here is a demo video that shows off the integration and covers some additional features:

Posted in

Announcements,Real Time

and tagged with

collaboration tools, document synchronization, dropbox, yammer

• Comment
• Subscribe
• 
  Email This
• Print This
• 
  Tweet This
• 
  Share
  

Corporate microblogging and enterprise social networking tool Yammer has taken some of its latest investment funding and made its first acquisition today: a small British software engineering firm called oneDrum. The idea is to extend its features to the desktop, improve collaboration and give Google Docs a bit of a competitive push too.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.