OMEN
12-14-2010, 11:56 PM
NIALL KITSON reports on how the two biggest websites on the planet are going to war for the right to your inbox.
Who would have thought the slugfest between the world's first- and second-placed websites would be fought over on a point of moral correctness? Well, that's the official version.
Last week Google took the unusual move of refusing to let its users export their data en masse to Facebook, citing data lock-in and the lack of control members have over how their personal information is used once exported to the social networking website.
According to Google, its 'don't be evil' ethos extends to user data in the form of portability (you should be able to move your data to and from whatever service you want) and transparency (your data won't be seen by anyone you don't want).
In contrast, Facebook holds on to the e-mail addresses you export when signing up for an account, and you have no control over what it does with your personal information (or 'likes' on your profile). The debacle over its first big marketing initiative Beacon - where friends shared purchases on their profile Walls - threw the issue of privacy into sharp relief, and it's an issue the company has been struggling with ever since.
The problem both companies face is that they rely on the goodwill of users to make money from services they don't pay for - something that's notoriously hard to do.
This week's announcement of Facebook's new messaging service, however, adds a new dimension to the culture clash of Web 1.0 (search) and Web 2.0 (social network) icons. Having failed to re-define webmail with Google Wave and networking with Buzz, Google is in need of a new consumer idea, or at least a way to protect what it has. All of a sudden the refusal to hand over Gmail contacts comes across not so much as an exercise in customer service and more like an act of self-preservation.
Payoff
But what is Google so afraid of that it has to play the transparency card? The fine details, and timetable for roll-out, remain vague. The broad strokes are that Facebook's service will integrate e-mail from multiple sources, introduce a dedicated @facebook.com address, instant messages and text messages into single conversation strings.
Instead of dividing up messages by subject or strings, correspondence across all media is amalgamated into single feeds - much the same as it appears on profile Walls. It's hardly revolutionary stuff: if anything it sounds like users could end up aggregating a lot of noise for little payoff, and Google services are already easily imported into open and closed sourced services, from cross-platform instant messaging clients like Pidgin to productivity suites like Microsoft Office.
The threat from an integrated Facebook service is that it will keep users within the social network's walled garden, never to be shared with the wider Web. This could spell disaster for the search giant if it seeks to grow its $23 billion AdWords model.
Where Facebook attracts advertisers by having users fess up their demographic information either directly or through the installation of third party applications, Google needs users online searching the Web so it can track the prevalence of keywords and the linkage between websites for search engine optimisation purposes.
As AdWords works off a pay-per-click model, having accurate information about the quality of a website and user behaviour is essential to advertisers so they can allocate their budgets to compete for space on the most sought-after websites.
In contrast, Facebook just needs people to hang around, engage with content virally through spontaneous pass along and buy their friends virtual birthday gifts for a pittance. That power of community has created an ecosystem where Facebook advertisers have much longer exposure to users with greater relevance for advertisers.
What's more, those interminable casual games have themselves become micro-economies worth billions on their own - Mafia Wars and Farmville developer Zynga is reportedly worth $5 billion.
The real debate is not about portability and security of personal data, it's about who accesses that data and for how long. Data protection, while important from a legal perspective, is a battle of optics - one which Google is winning on principle but losing in practice.
Users should have been applauding Google's stance, instead they found a quick workaround of downloading a copy of their address book as a .csv file and uploading to Facebook from their desktops. Let's not forget, either, the debacle over Street View and how cars involved in mapping for the service used unsecured domestic and commercial Wi-Fi networks without permission.
Google can reach for the high ground, but the climb is steeper than it would have you believe. Open Web or closed ecosystem neither operates without a commercial agenda. If there's a message to get out maybe that should be it. How you receive it is up to you.
RTE
Who would have thought the slugfest between the world's first- and second-placed websites would be fought over on a point of moral correctness? Well, that's the official version.
Last week Google took the unusual move of refusing to let its users export their data en masse to Facebook, citing data lock-in and the lack of control members have over how their personal information is used once exported to the social networking website.
According to Google, its 'don't be evil' ethos extends to user data in the form of portability (you should be able to move your data to and from whatever service you want) and transparency (your data won't be seen by anyone you don't want).
In contrast, Facebook holds on to the e-mail addresses you export when signing up for an account, and you have no control over what it does with your personal information (or 'likes' on your profile). The debacle over its first big marketing initiative Beacon - where friends shared purchases on their profile Walls - threw the issue of privacy into sharp relief, and it's an issue the company has been struggling with ever since.
The problem both companies face is that they rely on the goodwill of users to make money from services they don't pay for - something that's notoriously hard to do.
This week's announcement of Facebook's new messaging service, however, adds a new dimension to the culture clash of Web 1.0 (search) and Web 2.0 (social network) icons. Having failed to re-define webmail with Google Wave and networking with Buzz, Google is in need of a new consumer idea, or at least a way to protect what it has. All of a sudden the refusal to hand over Gmail contacts comes across not so much as an exercise in customer service and more like an act of self-preservation.
Payoff
But what is Google so afraid of that it has to play the transparency card? The fine details, and timetable for roll-out, remain vague. The broad strokes are that Facebook's service will integrate e-mail from multiple sources, introduce a dedicated @facebook.com address, instant messages and text messages into single conversation strings.
Instead of dividing up messages by subject or strings, correspondence across all media is amalgamated into single feeds - much the same as it appears on profile Walls. It's hardly revolutionary stuff: if anything it sounds like users could end up aggregating a lot of noise for little payoff, and Google services are already easily imported into open and closed sourced services, from cross-platform instant messaging clients like Pidgin to productivity suites like Microsoft Office.
The threat from an integrated Facebook service is that it will keep users within the social network's walled garden, never to be shared with the wider Web. This could spell disaster for the search giant if it seeks to grow its $23 billion AdWords model.
Where Facebook attracts advertisers by having users fess up their demographic information either directly or through the installation of third party applications, Google needs users online searching the Web so it can track the prevalence of keywords and the linkage between websites for search engine optimisation purposes.
As AdWords works off a pay-per-click model, having accurate information about the quality of a website and user behaviour is essential to advertisers so they can allocate their budgets to compete for space on the most sought-after websites.
In contrast, Facebook just needs people to hang around, engage with content virally through spontaneous pass along and buy their friends virtual birthday gifts for a pittance. That power of community has created an ecosystem where Facebook advertisers have much longer exposure to users with greater relevance for advertisers.
What's more, those interminable casual games have themselves become micro-economies worth billions on their own - Mafia Wars and Farmville developer Zynga is reportedly worth $5 billion.
The real debate is not about portability and security of personal data, it's about who accesses that data and for how long. Data protection, while important from a legal perspective, is a battle of optics - one which Google is winning on principle but losing in practice.
Users should have been applauding Google's stance, instead they found a quick workaround of downloading a copy of their address book as a .csv file and uploading to Facebook from their desktops. Let's not forget, either, the debacle over Street View and how cars involved in mapping for the service used unsecured domestic and commercial Wi-Fi networks without permission.
Google can reach for the high ground, but the climb is steeper than it would have you believe. Open Web or closed ecosystem neither operates without a commercial agenda. If there's a message to get out maybe that should be it. How you receive it is up to you.
RTE