Are We Really That Addicted To Social Networks?

By Corvida Raven of SheGeeks.net (FriendFeed/Twitter)

I think we may be taking social networks a little too far or too seriously. As MySpace underwent rapid growth, we saw one cell company relentlessly market to its audience: Helio. Do you remember the Helio? They were a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) that launched back in 2006. They marketed their phones to those who were serious MySpace addicts. Essentially they offered MySpace on the go, before all the mobile apps were made available to the public. Since then, there have been talks of Virgin Mobile acquiring Helio this past September, but you could esentially call Helio defunct at this point.

Today I caught wind of an announcement for a new Facebook phone. Is this where we are headed, people? Are the Facebook and Myspace apps not enough that we need entire cell phones dedicated to these social networks? Or are people just looking to get rich quickly off of the hype surrounding social networks? And it's not as if these have a record of working - remember Mobile ESPN?

These devices serve the same purpose as the Web site itself! Who in their right mind is going to spend money to access the site on the go via a completely different phone, when they can just as easily get an internet data plan added to their current cell phone to access the site or simply wait until they are near a computer. I'm beginning to wonder what mainstream is really thinking about when they see the hype that surrounds social networks. As much as I'm addicted to Twitter and FriendFeed, I would never purchase an entirely separate device just to access them. What's the point? I sense the beginning of a serious addiction problem for those that take things this far.

What do you think of technology like this? Is it a waste of money for both consumers and the company? Or will they become the next big thing in the future of tech?

Read more by Corvida Raven at SheGeeks.net.

Are Social Networks The New In Box?

By Corvida Raven of SheGeeks.net (FriendFeed/Twitter)

There comes a time when an Internet addict must step out of their in box... and into another one. Anyone that receives a ton of e-mail can relate to the headaches that just thinking about your in box can cause. Can you imagine sifting through hundreds of e-mails on a daily basis? Wayne Sutton does. Major bloggers do this all the time. So, it should come as no surprise that more people are referring new connections to their social networking profiles as their default way of contact instead of giving out their e-mail addressess.

I can admit that lately, I've referred more personal connections to my social network profiles instead of my Gmail address. Why is this change taking place? Here are two theories I have:

1. It's (Psychologically) Easier to Manage

You may be wondering how hopping from social network to social network is easier than managing all of those messages in one central location. Simple: information overload. When you look at your in box and have over 100 messages to sort through, your mind may automatically drain of energy. The task ahead could seem daunting. However, if you break down those messages and place them in separate locations, it's the same as breaking down a large project. Sure, spreading your messages out could require more time, but at least you'll still be encouraged to get through them all. It also beats staying on one site for numerous hours, reading and replying to messages.


2. Mainstream Adoption

This may seem a little out of left field, but I think the adoption of social networks into the life of mainstream Web users is causing more people to use their social networks as an in box. I have no idea what the e-mail addresses are for my friends that are not early adopters. How do I contact them? Through Facebook, MySpace, and DowneLink. These are all mainstream social networks that my friends live in. Most of my friends head to these sites before checking their e-mail. In fact, some of them only check their e-mail to see if there were any notifications sent to them from their social networks, which may even be the only e-mail they receive (outside of spam). As the mainstream moves onto these social networks, you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll be directing their new friends to their profiles. It's not just about being able to see more information than an e-mail address could ever give. It's an easier and more logical way for them to manage their social network.

Are social networks easier to manage than a standard in box? For some it could be a nightmare hopping all over the place. For me, it's great. It helps me to effectively separate my personal life from my online life. For my friends, it's a default setting and one that they wouldn't change. Is your favorite social network becoming your new in box?

Read more by Corvida Raven at SheGeeks.net.

The Valley's Proponents Become Its Critics in Hard Times

Friday's stock market roller coaster was one to remember. With the Dow Jones Industrial Average at one point down more than 500 points early in the session, again, a colleague and I headed to lunch just before noon with the market down more than 400. As we ate, the TV screens alerted us to a market rally that saw the market reverse course, racing beyond the break-even mark to crest at almost 200 points up, only to fall back down to a loss of more than 100. In between bites and conversation, I'd pass along a report: "Down 200. Down 100. Even. Up 50. Up 150. Even again." My latest position in Apple, created just Friday morning, at one point was up 10 percent in the space of hours - making me feel good, if just for a day.

The rise and fall euphoria and despair that we've all seen as the market rises and falls (and falls and falls in recent weeks) is not uncommon. The crowd mentality sees us piling on to negativity when things are bad, and blocking out risks when things are good. But even as things have gotten a lot more tight in our own personal financial accounts and 401ks, banks have gotten wobbly, and credit has gotten unstable, many of the major tenets that saw the Web 2.0 world lauded just a few months ago are still there - namely the ability to start a new company for much less, to attract a solid user base, and reduce burn rates to a level that wouldn't require significant funding. This means that even in times of scarcity, there's room for innovative ideas. And for those companies that already raised sufficient funds, or who have achieved profitability, their major focus should be hitting product milestones and gaining revenue, rather than worrying about keeping the doors open.

With the near extinguishing of companies entering the public markets in the last twelve months, combined with VCs saying funding will be tight going forward, and valuations lighter, the squeeze will be most noticed by companies looking to get the next series of capital, or those who find acquirers won't be offering the big numbers they had hoped. Many companies will be proposing hiring freezes to slow the burn, or letting non-essential people go.

But with that said, the technology advances that have let companies get off the ground for less mean the pressure from VCs and board members to turn thousands into millions and millions into billions is less than it was five years ago, when we saw a similar slowdown. Even Twitter, which has one of the highest profiles of "pre-revenue" companies, has only raised $15 million, a small fraction of the hundreds of millions given to Webvan, Kozmo.com and other high-profile Web 1.0 flameouts. Seesmic, which visibly laid off seven yesterday, also has raised a conservative $12 million or so in two rounds, and Silicon Valley darling, FriendFeed, has only raised $5 million in its initial round.

It has only taken a few months of bad news on Wall Street to see some of the most visible proponents of Web 2.0 startups start to pick on them and demand significant changes. But the calls for a route to revenue and product quality should have been there when times were good, not just now.

Most of today's Web companies don't need staffs of hundreds. They don't need seven-figure marketing budgets. And many are cutting costs on their technology infrastructures by turning to services like Amazon's S3. So the burn rates of years ago have lessened dramatically.

What recessions do is weed out the bad ideas from the good and move timetables. Great ideas continue to be supported and funded. During the last recession, LinkedIn was founded, in 2002. Google went from being a curiosity to a world leader, going public in 2004 after years of slowness for Web companies looking to reach the market. And in 2003, MySpace was started, following Friendster's 2002 debut.

That the economy's struggles will have far-reaching impact is not under dispute. But for Web companies that have been smart about keeping their costs low, and their revenue and profits in sight, they will power through. To prematurely call for their demise and dance on the grave of those that don't survive is not the way to go.

See also:

Dare Obasanjo: TechCrunch Turns Into F-----Company 2.0
The Inquisitr: Paging Chicken Little - The Sky Isn’t Falling

Spokeo: Ad-based Service Was a Failure, Declares Web 2.0 "Over"

A year ago, Spokeo entered my view as a service that would let you follow all your friends' updates across multiple social networks. At the time, the idea that you could see all their updates, from MySpace to Friendster, as well as follow all your RSS feeds in one place, was quite compelling. But even then, I said, "there's always the question of "How will they make money?" Not surprisingly, their approach of building a large user base, and slapping ads all over the place, gathering the pennies where they fell, simply didn't scale.

Their timing was also impeccably poor, as just two weeks after my initial post, FriendFeed debuted, ushering in a new level of expectations for social following and engagement.

Tonight, in a blog post by Harrison Tang, the company's founder, he writes that "as most of you would agree, the Web 2.0 era is long over", recounting that the company "ran ads for 3 months in the beginning of 2008, and we quickly realized that even if we grow the traffic by 100 times, we still couldn’t cover our basic costs."

In what's a complete 180 from their initial free model open to all who grabbed beta invites, Spokeo has revamped, making itself a premium play, and has flipped the data on its head, being less about tracking friends, and instead, tailoring it toward HR professionals who want to do some detective work on potential hires. (See: www.spokeo.com/hr)

This new model actually falls further into what people often called "Spook-eo", as the service can dredge up items you might have thought had been long since tucked away in the Web's archives. But Spokeo, after having launched with big expectations, has clearly scaled back, and is facing a new reality head on, trying to salvage something. As Harrison wrote, "Advertisers aren’t dumb, and they won’t pay for ads that don’t work forever." I've been outspoken in my distaste for display ads on Web sites, and think they're not the solution to all that ails the Web. Even services and blog networks more mature than that of Spokeo are going to struggle as ad budgets dry up, and differentiation decreases.


An example of an update within Spokeo's new interface

If anything, Spokeo has never been one to shy away from questionable publicity. You might recall in the wake of Google's auto-friending debacle last December, Spokeo made no changes and held their ground. But I don't know that I was waiting for them to declare Web 2.0 "over". Maybe the "ads + free" model is on thin ice, but Web 2.0 is and was about more than that. Should be interesting to see if Spokeo can turn the corner with their new approach, and if HR professionals will come their way instead of relying solely on LinkedIn. I think they'll find this new road a struggle as well.

Web 2.0 and Democratization of Data - Say What?

By Mona Nomura of Pixel Bits (FriendFeed/Twitter)

If George W. Bush and John Kerry campaigned for the presidency on the Internet four years ago, I wouldn't have seen the point and likely would have laughed in their faces. Who would have heard and listened to them? Fast forward to today, and the joke is on me.

In case you haven't noticed, both of the presidential hopefuls have a presence on the web. John McCain and Barack Obama have accounts on the major social networks, including MySpace, Facebook, YouTube channels, and even Twitter accounts. Social networking is no longer just for geeks. Web 2.0 is going mainstream and everyone (that means you, reader!) has opportunity to be more than an audience. Data is democratizing and everyone's voice can be heard.

Need more proof everyone has a voice that's heard? Take the Steve Job's false report of a heart attack debacle. A simple post on CNN's affiliate citizen journalism site, iReport, generated a massive ripple effect. Within minutes, the unconfirmed "news" spread like wild fire. CNN and Apple quickly issued official statements that report was false, major blogs picked up the story of falsified reports, but Apple's stock still dropped 10%. All from one silly rumor, started by a Joe Schmoe from who knows where. Everyone has opportunity to be heard. Hence, democratization of data.

So what does that mean?

Well, stay with me, as I take this a step further. Most of you probably know me through FriendFeed, where I spend almost 90% of my days posting random pictures and or links. Now FriendFeed was once dominated by veteran bloggers, Internet personalities, - basically folks who have been around for some time, and put years of efforts into their well deserved titles by their names - or the tech 'elite'. It's now been a little over three months since I signed up, and still can't believe I interact with the information sources where tech-news (data) start and circulate around. But honestly? The 'elite' in my eyes, are regular people who are a part of the FriendFeed I love so much. And it's not constrained to FriendFeed. Whether you or anyone else for that matter, likes it or not, there are so many people from all walks of life, from all over the world sharing and discussing information on all social networks across the board. How can every single voice not be heard? Again, democratization of data. And this is only the beginning.

Think about it.

New sites and services are popping up every month. Established, major Social Networks such as MySpace and or Facebook are adding features, functions, and tools encouraging users to share data. The way Social Networks will be used are changing. There are millions of active users like us, sharing our personal stories, the latest news, information pertaining to our professional life, or even stupid cat photos since we - the users, have the choice and control to share whatever we feel is important to share. The bottomline: Information is no longer consolidated, centralized, or coming from a few selected sources. Data is now and will only continue to be democratized.

The path is now paved, so the choice is yours. How will you exercise these options?

Read more by Mona Nomura at Pixel Bits.