Wednesday, March 04, 2009


facebook The world's most popular website has reached another milestone, it now has 175 million active users worldwide.

This is an amazing achievement for a website that was started just four years ago, and it has made it's founder a billionaire, even though he's not yet 25. 


Mark Zuckerberg set up Facebook (then known as thefacebook) whilst studying at Harvard in 2004. The original site was only open to students at the University, but this was soon expanded and grew into the multi-million pound business that it is today.

So, you may ask, how did Mark Zuckerberg come up with such an amazing idea it made him a billionaire before his 25th birthday?

The origins of Zuckerberg's billion dollar idea are somewhat clouded. Several former classmates took legal action against him claiming that he had stolen their idea.

His classmates, the owners of, claimed that they had hired Zuckerberg to make them a dating website for Harvard students whilst they were all studying at Harvard with Zuckerberg and that Zuckerberg used this idea and their source code to create Facebook.

Whether this was the case or not, an out of court settlement this month gave his former classmates $65 million in cash and shares, meaning that Zuckerberg isn't the only Facebook millionaire.


Along with the lawsuit, something else had dogged Facebook throughout its development - privacy.

Two MIT students managed to download 70,000 Facebook profiles using a simple script in 2005 and as recently as last year the BBC demonstrated that a simple data mining application was able to gather information on profiles and the profiles of friends.

The more information that is placed in the user profiles and the more accessible it is (i.e. public) the more likely it is that the information could be stolen. Sure, with 175 million users on Facebook the odds may be in the users favour, but security by obscurity is not the wisest option.

Other concerns are highlighted in Channel 4's The IT Crowd's parody of Facebook - friendface.

Sure it's funny, but some of the points raised in the joke advert are very real. Facebook does, for example, state in their terms and conditions:

"We may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship."

Your information literally means anything that is uploaded to the website, from profile information and messages through to pictures and video. Like the in the spoof advert, Facebook promises not to hand over information to third parties, at least according to a spokesman:

"Simply put, we have never provided our users' information to third party companies, nor do we intend to."

The very fact that such a clause is in the terms and conditions would seem to imply otherwise.

What's more Facebook altered their terms and conditions on 4th February 2009 to make clear that they wish to keep your information, permanently, even after an account had been cancelled!

This caused something of an uproar when spotted by and pointed out by a consumer rights blog and a few weeks later Facebook was forced to back down and revert to its previous terms and conditions.


In November 2007 Facebook launched an advertising programme called Beacon, which again raised serious privacy concerns. Privacy advocates main concern with Beacon was that it sent information back to Facebook from partner sites, so that Facebook can better target adverts, all without the users permission.

Even when Facebook made this an opt in only service, it was still discovered that information was being sent to Facebook, even when users had opted out, or were not logged in.

A lawsuit was filed against Facebook and its partners in the Beacon program in 2008, alleging that the system broke several laws.


The concerns about Facebook are likely to be well founded, after all it is a business and businesses are there to make money. At the moment and despite the massive user base and the apparent worth of the business, it doesn't have a clear way of making money.

Facebook had an estimated turnover of $300 million in 2008, but this doesn't tell the full story. Those servers, bandwidth, staff and other facilities do not come cheap, estimated expenditure in 2008 was $200 million, so they are not getting much change from that $300 million.

It is believed that Facebook generates most of its revenue from advertising but with the click through rate apparently at around 0.02-0.04%, its no Google search.

Google itself is having similar problems with Youtube, the site is popular, it has millions of users but it just isn't making enough from advertising, especially when it spends so much on servers, bandwidth and so forth. It isn't enough just to have lots of visitors to a website, you need some way to convert these hits into cash.

Google is also looking at other ways to make money from Youtube. We can expect the same from Facebook, after all they are not running their respective websites for charity. There are only a few ways of making money from a website, even popular ones, so it will be interesting to see what direction both of these huge websites take in order to monetize their user base.

Labels: ,

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Why Flash isn't always good

Many people ask for flash based websites, believing them to be the best way of impressing visitors, having a professional and modern looking website and also giving visitors an interactive, and easy to use, browsing experience.

Whilst some of the above may be true, there are two areas in which Flash based websites lose out - accessibility and rankings.

Search engines

The importance of search engine rankings should not be understated, after all, what use is a website if no one can find it.

This extract from an email from Google explains:

"While our spidering practices may change in the future, we find that Flash is not a very user-friendly experience in a lot of ways. It is wholly inaccessible to the sight-impaired, not renderable on many devices (such as phones, PDAs), and so on. In particular, we hugely frown upon navigation done exclusively in Flash."

I have seen many sites fall into the trap of using flash completely, some do have a HTML site too, most do not. Using flash for the site navigation not only means that Google may not like your website as much non-Flash sites, but it may also mean that Google is unable to find and index anything other than your homepage.

It also means that those using mobile phones, PDAs and screen readers will be unable to view your website, let alone navigate through it. This wasn't much of a concern in the past, but with most mobile phones been web enabled, you could be cutting out a large portion of visitors.

While things have improved regarding search engines, notably Google, since this email was sent, the fact remains that if two exact sites were made, one in flash, the other in CSS and HTML, the CSS and HTML site would be ranked higher.

Small businesses

This is an important point to consider, particularly for small and medium sized businesses. These businesses don't have the kind of income to spend on teams of SEO specialists to get the best rankings, unlike the big companies that they may be competing with.

SMBs are going to be paying quite a bit of money just to get decent rankings, so anything that could count against them should be avoided, and whilst non-Flash website may not look as attractive or as flashy; SMBs need to get the best possible rankings from their content.

The bigger picture

It is probably best to think of Flash like pictures, they may look great but you really wouldn't want a site made up entirely of pictures, unless you're comedian Jerry Sadowitz.

Apart from taking far longer than text to load, even if a picture contains text, it can't be read by the search engines. Jerry Sadowitz's site for instance has only these words associated with it: Jerry Sadowitz - Comedy, Magic and More, and only those words as they are the title to every page. The search engines don't see pictures, they only see text, so an all picture site such as that of Jerry Sadowitz is virtually blank.

Pictures should be used to complement the site content (text), not replace it. The same goes for Flash, it should have a place on a website but should be used sparingly and not as a replacement to a website.

It is possible to get a great looking site through CSS and HTML alone, and then of course any amount of pictures and Flash can be added to complement that.

Although it may change in the future, CSS and HTML is still the best way to tick all the relevant boxes when it comes to your website.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Google and the Cloud

Google's launch of a new browser named Chrome this week has been met with a somewhat muted response. Although it was expected that at some point Google would launch a browser, there is still concern as to just where this new browser would fit into the market.

Firefox has for several years been taking chunks out of the dominance of the Internet Explorer, and if Google's Chrome is going to be taking users from anywhere, it will likely be those that use the likes of Firefox, Opera or Safari.

A different sort of browser

However Chrome isn't intended as a direct replacement for Firefox, or even Internet Explorer for that matter. Chrome is aimed at a completely different market. Chrome's primary aim is to give better compatibility and reliability with some of it's other services such as Google Apps.

"What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for web pages and applications, and that's what we set out to build,"
Mr Pichai, VP Product Management.

Regardless of it's main focus, there are plenty of raised eyebrows at the thought of a Google browser.


Google does not have a good record when it comes to privacy, up until recently it kept search data indefinitely, now Google says that it would only be keeping search data for up to two years.

Many have questioned just why the search company needs to keep this data at all, let alone for two years, and the EU and Norway have launched investigations into this type of data retention.

The data kept by Google includes the search term typed in, the address of the internet server and occasionally more personal information contained on “cookies”, or identifier programs, on an individual’s computer.

It is quite worrying the amount of data that Google, and other search engines are able to glean from simple searches, and it is not clear whether after two years the information is in some way randomised, or deleted entirely.

Peter Fleischer, European privacy counsel for Google, has said that the company..

"...needed to keep search information for some time for security purposes – to help guard against hacking and people trying to misuse Google’s advertising system."

Even so, two years is a long time to keep information on the off chance of misuse.

Google's advertising system has also come under fire for its privacy issues, with AT & T saying:

Advertising-network operators such as Google have evolved beyond merely tracking consumer web surfing activity on sites for which they have a direct ad-serving relationship. They now have the ability to observe a user's entire web browsing experience at a granular level, including all URLs visited, all searches, and actual page-views.

If this wasn't the case before, with Google having its own browser, it is likely to be the case now. A browser automatically tracks the sites that a user visits, as well as storing cookies. Normally this isn't too much of a concern except on a shared PC, but if Google's Chrome sends this information back to Google....

There are already concerns regarding Google's Omnibox:

Provided that users leave Chrome's auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browser's Omnibox, even before a user hits enter....A Google representative told CNET News that the company plans to store about 2 percent of that data--and plans to store it along with the Internet Protocol address of the computer that typed it....In theory, that means that if one were to type the address of a site--even if they decide not to hit enter--they could leave incriminating evidence on Google's servers.

Quite a surprising feature and again we must ask if this is really necessary. There is an option (Incognito mode) that prevents the sending of information, but it is unclear how well this mode is labelled and whether the average user will be aware of it. As in all aspects of personal privacy the options should be the other way round, Incognito mode should be enabled by default and turned off by users that wish to, as the vast majority of users are likely just to use the browser as is.

The Cloud

There is of course another area in which Google is competing with Microsoft, the cloud. The cloud is where services are provided as web based applications, in other words where no software is purchased or downloaded, the user simply needs a web browser to use the applications. Many companies are moving into providing services in 'the cloud'; Adobe for instance provides a stripped down version of its Photoshop application for free as a web based service.

Google provides Google Apps, also for free - at least for basic use, as a web based service, directly competing with Microsoft's Office program. Admittedly the cloud appears to be a very useful way of using software at first glance. Previously those using multiple computers have to carry around flash memory cards or USB sticks containing their information and documents. Even then they had to make sure that the same software was installed on every PC they were intending to use.

Google Apps, and other services like them, make working on the move much more conveinant and remove the hassle of trying to open an important document on a PC that doesn't have Microsoft Office installed.

Along with the pros, there are a few cons; this move toward providing a service rather than the actual software means that the user has nothing tangible to rely on. Should the internet or even just the service provider fail, they are lost.

Then of course there are the costs, at present many of these services are free with premium paid for subscription services an option, but once the dominance of the likes of Microsoft is broken, what is to stop these service providers charging everyone? Moreover, what is to stop them setting whatever price they want to, once you have become tied in to their services?

Add to this the privacy issues concerning someone like Google, who have access to your search records and information; with GMail, your emails and content; with your browser, the websites you visit and your browsing habits; and with your documents and accounts they may well have filled in the last gaps in your private information.

Of course this is a cynical view, but a slip up the Chrome EULA provided the cynics with quite a bit of ammunition:

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, and distribute any Content which you submit, post, or display on or through, the Services."

This was of course later altered when it was pointed out, but it does bring up another important point, few people actually read EULAs and this article shows why perhaps they should do.

The Future

Google envisions a move toward the cloud in most aspects of every day computing, and in fact this view is nothing new. Bill Gates said many years ago that he believed computing would move toward a subscription service, where Microsoft are paid every month, just like other utility providers. Now such a reality is closer than ever.

However a complete move to remote computing is unlikely, what with the prevalence of cheap flash storage and with laptops and netbooks being so cheap and open source software being so freely available, there isn't a desperate need for such a solution.

Should Google resolve its privacy issues, it will be an excellent option for many people, and that of course is what is key - choice. It would give users a variety if options of how to use software, so they aren't tied to just one method, particularly those on the move. The smart people would have a laptop and/or a flash card and perhaps use Google Apps too, just in case one should fail.

Google's Chrome is an interesting move, Chrome isn't yet the answer to anyone's prayers, but it will certainly push forward browser development and open new avenues. If the fears over Google and privacy turn out to be wholly unfounded, then it may help enable a much freer computing environment for everyone.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , , ,