WhatsApp deal dwarfs other high-profile Tech acquisitions

WhatsApp with Facebook's $19B offer?

 http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2014/02/19/t-facebook-whatsapp-19-billion.cnnmoney/

In a play to dominate messaging on phones and the Web, Facebook has acquired WhatsApp for $19 billion.

That's a stunning sum for the five-year old company. But WhatsApp has been able to hold its weight against messaging heavyweights like Twitter (TWTR), Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) and Microsoft's (MSFT, Fortune 500) Skype. WhatsApp has upwards of 450 million users, and it is adding an additional million users every day.

Referring to WhatsApp's soaring growth, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a conference call, "No one in the history of the world has done anything like that."

WhatsApp is the most popular messaging app for smartphones, according to OnDevice Research.

Buying WhatsApp will only bolster Facebook's already strong position in the crowded messaging world. Messenger, Facebook's a standalone messaging app for mobile devices, is second only to WhatsApp in its share of the smartphone market.

Related: 5 key moments that changed Facebook
 
Similar to traditional text messaging, WhatsApp allows people to connect via their cellphone numbers. But instead of racking up texting fees, WhatsApp sends the actual messages over mobile broadband. That makes WhatsApp particularly cost effective for communicating with people overseas.

That kind of mobile messaging services have become wildly popular, with twice as many messages sent over the mobile Internet than via traditional texts, according to Deloitte. But most of the messaging industry's revenue is still driven by text messaging.

On the conference call, Facebook said it is not looking to drive revenue from WhatsApp in the near term, instead focusing on growth. Zuckerberg said he doesn't anticipate trying to aggressively grow WhatsApp's revenue until the service reaches "billions" of users.

WhatsApp currently charges a dollar a year after giving customers their first year of use for free. WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum said on the conference call that WhatsApp's business model is already successful.

That indicates Facebook bought WhatsApp to add value to its existing messaging services, as well as for the long-term potential of the company.

Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion in 2012 for similar reasons: As young social network users gravitated towards photo-sharing, Facebook wanted to scoop up what could have eventually become a big rival.

Like Instagram, WhatsApp will function as an autonomous unit within Facebook, with all the existing employees coming in as part of the deal.

Facebook (FB, Fortune 500) said it will pay WhatsApp $4 billion in cash and $12 billion in stock.

WhatsApp's founders and staff will be eligible for for another $3 billion in stock grants to be paid out if they remain employed by Facebook for four years. Koum will also join Facebook's board of directors.

-   By Adrian Covert  @CNNMoneyTech

Don’t be ‘that’ person on social media: tips and best practices

BE MORE COURTEOUS: Following someone on social media is a lot like dating, therefore one should follow certain rules of etiquette. — AFP

For me, following someone on social media is a lot like dating. I like to learn a little about them first before going all the way.

When I follow someone, it’s because I liked what they were sharing or appreciated what they had to say.
 
But not everyone is follow material. Some people are boring, annoying and predictable. And some make mistakes that leave us scratching our heads in sheer bewilderment.

So here are a few tips and best practices to not only get you more followers, but to get you noticed instead of blocked.

• May I have your attention? Please!   

Instead of telling me what you’re doing, tell me what has your attention. Way back when Twitter had that new car smell, it got a bad rap because everyone was posting that they were eating. Or thinking about eating. I don’t care about that, but I might care if you have photos of an amazing gourmet meal. In other words, what has your attention vs. the obvious.

As Doc Brown said in the Back to the Future movies, “Marty! You’re not thinking fourth-dimensionally!” Thinking fourth-dimensionally makes social media fun.

• Not everyone cares about your schedule: Scheduling tweets or Facebook posts isn’t the worst thing you can do, but scheduling something at an inopportune time is.

There are countless examples of brands and people that had tweets set up during tragedies such as the Sandy Hook school shooting and the Boston Marathon bombings. I had an e-mail exchange with someone after Boston who defended it with, “Oh, I had that set up loooooooong before it happened.” Well, you know what? That’s not a valid excuse. You are responsible for every message you send, whether it’s automated or not. Also, scheduling tweets that far in advance can be a recipe for trouble. Be aware of what’s going on around you at all times, and make sure the message you are sending is the right one.

• Let me be direct — or not: One of the things that annoys me most on Twitter is the automatic direct message.

You know, when you follow an account and you get a tweet immediately that goes something like this: “You are awesome. Let’s be awesome together. Tell me the things that make you happy.” Besides the fact that no one talks like this and I have little interest in talking about what makes me happy with someone I just met, the automatic direct message is lazy and it’s not social.

The real-life equivalent is screening a call and letting it go to voicemail. One is more convenient, but the other is appreciated. This is social media, folks. Show me the real you, not some watered-down version. Be social.

Keeping these three things in mind when you share on social media can be the difference between being just another follow and a superstar

By SCOTT KLEINBERG . — McClatchy-Tribune Information Services 

Related posts:

Deactivate your Facebook account!
Facebook paparazzi 
Facebook Tries to Monetize By Annoying; LinkedIn Adds Value fo its Site 
Laws of attraction
Pretty woman picture all it takes for Netizens to reveal all
FB postings became street fight! 

Underage and on Facebook

Facebook is mulling over letting children below the age of 13 join its network, but with so many signed up already, what difference would it make? 

FACEBOOK'S minimum age should be 21. This argument mooted by CNN blogger John D. Sutter will no doubt get the support of many parents who worry about safety and privacy issues on the social media network. That is, those parents who have not secretly signed up, or helped to sign up, their children on Facebook.

Facebook (FB) already has an age limit 13 years old but the reality is that many “underaged” children already have their own profiles on the site, parents' consent notwithstanding.

In fact, it is estimated that some 7.5 million children below the age of 13 are currently on FB, out of its total 900 million plus users worldwide.

This shows that the minimum age requirement on FB is just a number. Facebook does little, if anything, to enforce it, and one can simply lie about their birth date to circumvent the rule.

So why the charade?

As suggested by the Wall Street Journal, which first broke the news of the social media giant's plans to open up to tweens and even younger kids, Facebook was feeling the heat from the American authorities in relation to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

The Act stipulates that online services catering to children below 13 would need to obtain the consent of their parents before collecting data from them. COPPA also requires that parents be given the ability to review, revise and delete their children's data.

Hence, with the number of pre-teen children registering on the site growing by day, Facebook knows it can no longer turn a blind eye to its minefield. Coming clean is perhaps its only option in defending itself from any potential legal action.

As it acknowledged in a statement: “Enforcing age restriction on the Internet is a difficult issue, especially when many reports have shown that parents want their children to access online content and services.”

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg himself had earlier said he would like to see kids under 13 use FB “more honestly and in compliance with the law”.

“My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age... Because of the restrictions, we haven't even begun this learning process... If they're lifted then we'd start to learn what works. We'd take a lot of precautions to make sure that they (younger kids) are safe...,” he was quoted.

The conspiracy theorists of course say freeing the shackles is one way for Facebook to recoup its losses after a disappointing debut at the share market. Widening its user base will certainly broaden its revenue-raising opportunities, especially in the mobile apps and ad sector, and add to its market value.

Then there is the brand loyalty factor getting them young is the best way to get users hooked for the future, and guard against any possible defection to “cooler” social media networks to come.

Whatever the motive, the reality remains stark there is a high number of active FB tweens and they can no longer be ignored.

Choy: Many parents of children who are being bullied online feel they can’t do anything about it.

Time to Like

As he sees it, officially opening up to the under-13s can be a positive move, says CyberSecurity Malaysia chief executive officer Lt Col (R) Prof Datuk Husin Jazri.

“By officially allowing children to sign up, Facebook can keep tabs on how many Facebookers below 13 there are,” he opines.

In Malaysia, for instance, it is no secret that many tweens have their own FB accounts, with most having signed up either with the consent and help from their parents, siblings or close relatives; or by “cheating” Facebook, that is, changing their birth date to make the computer system accept them as above 13.

It is not clear how many Malaysian children are now online but with some 12.5 million Malaysian FB users recorded this year, it is safe to say that there are many.

In fact, global social media and digital analytics company Socialbakers estimated that some 2.2% of Malaysian Facebookers were aged 13 and below last August (around 248, 528). That is a rough estimate at best; with our below-18 population totalling up to 11.2 million (approximately 2.87 million children are in primary school), it is difficult to pinpoint how many FB minors are signed up on a fake age.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) chairman Datuk Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi agrees that removing the token age restriction is perhaps the most effective way to protect our children on Facebook.

This will create openness among the tweens and their parents, says Sharil.

“Children will not need to hide that they have FB accounts any more and would be encouraged to share their online experiences with their parents. If they do not bypass the protection measures (as kids nowadays are very IT savvy), the children should get the age appropriate online protection they need against the adult world' of Facebook,” he adds.

However, both agree that this will only be effective if Facebook fulfils its commitment to introduce a new suite of tools for parents to keep their children safe when they register a FB account and interact on the social networking site.

Sharil, who is also vice-chairman of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Council Working Group on Child Online Protection (COP), a specialised organ of the United Nations based in Geneva, Switzerland, reminds parents that children are minors first and foremost.

“Children under 13 are typically in the primary school group and need extra supervision, guidance and care,” he stresses.

Husin proposes that specific accounts for those below 13 be created with suitable contents and safeguards to enable parents and guardians to continually provide assistance as well as monitor the online activities of these young Facebookers.

Sharil: ‘Children need guidance and supervision. Online tools and technologies can never replace the care and guidance that parents can give’

“Facebook for those below 13 should be categorised as a special account, different from the adult Facebook accounts. They should introduce some kind of system to ensure that the children obtain parental consent before they get accepted to sign up, and whenever a child requests for or accepts a new Facebook friend, parents should be alerted,” he adds.

Dangerous playground

Still, as many parents would be deigned to admit, no matter how vigilant you are, it is still a big bad Web out there.

“Parents can only guide and monitor their children, they cannot really change the environment,” says a father-of-three who only wants to be known as Arshavin.

You will still need the help of the policy makers and service providers, among others, to make the Internet, and specifically Facebook, safe for children, he adds.

“No matter how well-trained or educated your children are, some places are just off limits, even if you go there with them.

“I read this one comment that I think captures it well will you let your elementary school child attend a college or adult party?'. You won't, right?” he poses, warning that some parents might be lulled by a false sense of security for their children on Facebook if the new ruling is implemented.

Social media specialist Jasmin Choy agrees, highlighting cyber-bullying as one danger for young children on FB. The problem is intensified as many parents are not equipped to deal with it, she says.

“Many parents of children who are being bullied online feel they can't do anything about it. Then there are those who just don't know what is happening to their kids in cyberspace, or those who are not giving enough guidance to their kids and are becoming bullies online,” she says.

Opposing the social media network's plans to open up their membership for children under 13, the mother of two relates a recent cyber-bullying case close to her heart.

“It happened to a friend's child who is sensitive and fragile. She was already being subtly bullied online when the girls ganged up on her and made her feel like she was stupid. The problem was, the mother didn't know what to do about it. If she intervened, the daughter would be very embarrassed. On the other hand, if the mum didn't intervene, these girls would go on bullying her daughter.”

Another red flag for children, she warns, is online porn and sexual predators.

“Many parents have no idea how much porn is being served up to the kids online. They think they have some idea but are often shocked when they discover how accessible porn is to their six- to13-year-olds.”

As Choy highlights, one only needs to go to some of the game apps on FB to receive porn advertisements.

“Many pop up even on innocent-looking Facebook games. Besides, curious kids are going to share images and if there's FB and Twitter they will see it,” she says, advising parents to “prepare” their children by educating them about the birds and the bees at an early age.

“We can't be prudish about it. They are going to see it anyway, so why not explain to them before trouble brews.”

The main danger she foresees, however, is the breach of privacy.

“Think about all the times we chatted with a young kid on FB. We must have at least mentioned the child's name, asked them how their day was... things like that. We tend to forget the dangers when we are having fun online. Bad people can easily glean information from the chats the adults have with young kids on FB posts,” she says.

Choy also strongly believes that pre-teens are particularly vulnerable because most do not have the maturity to handle problems related to FB or be aware of the dangers.

“Even if they are aware of the dangers, they can't often see the danger in front of them. Even adults don't react fast enough to FB risks, what more children of that age,” she says.

Along with the threat of paedophiles, there is also worry that young children will be subjected to unscrupulous advertisers and marketers on Facebook, or have their personal data sold to advertisers.

Not surprisingly, Zuckerberg has already been lobbied by a coalition of consumer, privacy and child advocacy groups to keep children's data confidential and the site ad-free for the below-13s in the United States.

For bank officer Aslina, addiction is her big worry.

“Just like adults, kids tend to spend way too much time on Facebook and can get addicted to it. Instead of studying or socialising with friends and playing games or sports, they will be logged on FB.”

And, cautions teacher Mary K, parents might not be able to withstand another pressure should FB open its doors to pre-teens peer pressure.

“Now they will be pressured to join because all their friends are on it. It will be a difficult time for parents, “ she says.

Arshavin agrees.

“I asked my 16-year-old daughter why she is on FB, and she said it was to watch what her friends are up to. But when I asked her to log off, she just whined about what she would be missing,” he says.

Calling FB a “different beast altogether”, Choy who is a proponent of the Internet as a study tool vows to keep her children away from it as long as she can.

“I really believe all young kids should have access to the Internet. My six-year-old can Google search for any information related to his hobbies or studies at any time with the tablet. YouTube has given him access to various documentaries he can watch and learn from. And why not? Technology and the Internet have made learning exciting. It has allowed my children to think out of the box. I just don't think they should have an FB account at an early age,” she says.

If parents do decide to let the child open a FB account, she adds, they would need to constantly talk to them about the hazards and teach them good cyber habits.

“Explain over and over again why they should not reveal sensitive information like their names, location of the moment and place of residence. And check, check, check their FB settings,” she stresses.

And constantly but silently read their children's postings to check for trouble, she adds.

This is something Alina does diligently with her two pre-teen children who are registered on FB.

“In the beginning, I was worried that I was making the wrong decision to let them get their own profiles on FB. But I read up on it and made sure that I know what is in store for them. Then I went through all the safety and security features available on FB with them before we registered.”

Most importantly, she adds, she always reminds them to be as cautious online as they would be in the real world.

Sharil agrees children should be taught as early as possible that rules and regulations exist online just as they do offline, and that there are dangerous areas online just as there are dangerous areas or things in the real world.

It is parents' responsibility to cultivate security awareness in their children and educate them on safe Internet usage, says Husin.

“Parents must be alert of any unusual activities of their children on the Net and take the appropriate action to rectify if their child gets caught in any undesirable activities online.”

Sharil, however, reiterates that parents are the best judge of whether their child is ready for Facebook themselves.

“It all goes back to the basic skills of parenting and instilling good moral values in their children. Children need guidance and supervision. Only parents can do this effectively. Teachers, NGOs and the broader community can help but they can never replace the parent,” he notes.

Crucially, parents are at the frontlines of their children's defence, says Sharil.

“Parents should continue to monitor their children's online activities while encouraging appropriate online behaviour. They should not totally depend on Facebook's parenting' facilities. Online tools and technologies can never replace the care and guidance that parents can give.”

Ultimately, he adds, it is extremely important for parents and guardians to become good role models for their children when they are online.

By HARIATI AZIZAN sunday@thestar.com.my

The Biggest Cost of Facebook's Growth

Running the world's largest social network will be a technical and financial challenge as it grows.

Data store: Facebook’s data center in Prineville, Oregon, is one of several that will help the company cope with its always growing user base.  Facebook

Facebook is the gateway to the Internet for a growing number of people. They message rather than e-mail; discover news and music through friends, rather than through conventional news or search sites; and use their Facebook ID to access outside websites and applications.

As the keeper of so many people's social graph, Facebook is in an incredibly powerful position—one reason its IPO this week is expected to be the largest ever for an Internet company.

But potential investors should take note that there's a flip side to Facebook's explosive growth and power; that flip side, as one analyst put it, is its bid to become a core piece of the Internet's infrastructure. Facebook's own technology infrastructure is expensive to build and operate, and it must scale rapidly.

Infrastructure is Facebook's biggest cost, and to support growing traffic and network complexity, it will have to spend even more. What's less clear is whether Facebook's revenues will likewise increase—especially if additional traffic comes from less lucrative visitors, such as people accessing the site from their phones or from outside North America and Europe.

To date, Facebook has been up to the infrastructure challenge. In less than eight years it has grown to host 526 million daily users, 300 million daily photo uploads, and nine million applications.

Two metrics highlight Facebook's success in this respect.

First, Facebook spent $860 million, or about $1 per active monthly user, to deliver and distribute its products last year. The bulk of that money was related to data center equipment, staff, and operating costs. That is up from about 80 cents and 60 cents per user in the two previous years. For the moment, however, Facebook's revenue, currently at $4.30 per user, is growing at an even faster clip. That's a good sign for any potential investor.

Second, Facebook is not only the Web's biggest social media site, it is also consistently the fastest. In 2010, Facebook's response time averaged one second in the U.S., but had improved to 0.73 seconds by mid-2011, according to AlertSite. By comparison, LinkedIn, the next fastest, took nearly double the time to load. Twitter's site was a full two seconds slower.

Facebook has come a long way since it was first hosted in Mark Zuckerberg's dorm room and expanded as he rented additional servers for $80 a month. By late 2009, Facebook disclosed it was using about 30,000 servers, and since then, the number has more than doubled.

As it has grown, the company's engineers have had to innovate to keep costs down and process a growing volume of data. For example, Facebook designed minimalist custom servers that are cheaper for it to build and run than off-the-shelf ones. It also built a program to optimize the performance of its code, cutting the computing demand on its Web servers by 50 percent. It has open-sourced many of its software innovations and also created the Open Compute Project to widely share its new server designs, with the hope that others could contribute useful innovations.

Today, Facebook is building its own data centers in Oregon, North Carolina, and Sweden. Last year it spent nearly a third of its revenues, $1.1 billion, in capital expenditures on networking equipment and infrastructure. It plans to spend as much as $1.8 billion on such costs this year.

These infrastructure investments are a good sign, says KC Mares, a data-center energy expert and the founder of MegaWatt Consulting; owning and operating rather than leasing data-center space will help Facebook save money in the long term. Other growing tech companies such as Google have pursued this same strategy.

But as Facebook's IPO filing makes clear, there is also a risk to investing in a global infrastructure to serve all users, regardless of their short-term profitability. It is a balancing act.

"If you add too much, it's a big cost that eats into your revenues. If you don't add fast enough, it's an opportunity cost of customers you can't serve," says John Pflueger, a board member of the Green Grid, an IT industry group.

Coming to the wrong conclusions about how to invest in infrastructure can have major consequences. Just look at Friendster, a social network founded before Facebook and MySpace. Friendster had more than 100 million users, but it quickly fell behind as Facebook came to dominate the landscape.

Jim Scheinman, head of business development at Friendster until 2005, says Friendster made product decisions that required too much computing power. For example, it tried to calculate up to six-degree connections between all users. As a result, the site slowed to a crawl. Today, big Web companies often calculate exactly how much revenue they lose when a page is slow to load, even down to tenths of a second.

Facebook, of course, is long past its early days and has more than a critical mass on its platform: almost half of the world's population of Internet users. But to stay relevant as it battles companies like Google, it'll have to stay on the cutting edge, and it will need the computing power to support that.

The question, says Scheinman, is less about costs and capital and more about engineering challenges: "When they have a billion people, and as people use the product more, does that create scaling issues they haven't yet seen before?"

By Jessica Leber Newscribe : get free news in real time  

Related posts:
You addicted to Facebook ?
Think before you "Like" on Facebook
Yes, Facebook addicts, must get out to socialize more! 
The dark side of Facebook; Link to socially aggressive ... 
Facebook's CEO to keep iron grip after IPO; how to make ... 
Display Ads, Facebook Beating Google In The 'Battle For ... 
The Secrets to Mastering Facebook, Get Ready For F ...  
Make money from Facebook IPO!
Facebook? No thanks!

LinkedIn's Growth Continues: Fueling the Corporate Talent Machine

 Another amazing quarter from LinkedIn: revenues of $188.5 Million, up 101%, with the “hiring solutions” business now driving $102.6 Million or 54% of company revenue. LinkedIn’s revenues in the corporate recruiting market are now larger than Taleo (just acquired by Oracle for $1.9 Billion), SuccessFactors (just acquired by SAP for $3.4 billion), Kenexa, and nearly every other software company which sells recruiting solutions.

Let me highlight how LinkedIn is “fueling the corporate talent machine.”

LinkedIn has become the “must have” in corporate recruiting and is expanding its footprint.

With more than 161 million professional users in its network, LinkedIn is now the “must-have” tool for corporate recruiters around the world. The company’s “hiring solutions” business continues to deliver innovative products which leverage the data in the LinkedIn network for corporate and contract recruiters.

These products include:

• Highly effective job placement ads (recruiters tell me LinkedIn ads generate 2-3X the quality of candidates of other ad placements)
• Licensing  LinkedIn Recruiter, the recruiter’s “secret weapon” which lets corporate HR managers and staffing professionals search, find, and source candidates
• Branded career pages – an offering that lets companies of all sizes create a highly personalized candidate portal within the LinkedIn garden of  professionals
• Talent Pipeline, a new feature set within LinkedIn Recruiter which lets recruiters manage the entire process of “candidate relationship management” – a hot new application area within corporate HR.

And the company has much more to come.

The Corporate Talent Acquisition Market


Corporate recruiters are in a war for talent. Lloyds of London’s 2011 risk assessment survey points out that “Talent and Skills Shortages” are the #2 rated risk among 100 business risks today (following the risk of “losing customers.”)

Despite the high unemployment rate in most countries, companies tell us over and over that there is a paradoxical mismatch between demand and supply of skills. And great candidates are not looking for work.

And the cost of sourcing and recruiting is very high.

The average employer spends over $3500 per hire on all areas of recruiting (from our Talent Acquisition Factbook®), and the spending is much higher in executive positions. This means the entire US marketplace for talent acquisition is around $130 billion by our estimates, so LinkedIn still has a lot of whitespace to cover.

I just finished meeting with the head of corporate recruiting for Pfizer (who is on LinkedIn’s advisory council) and she reinforced that LinkedIn’s network is truly global and has become one of their primary tool for finding great candidates.

Pioneering the shift from cloud-based software to BigData applications.

LinkedIn is benefiting from something else here. The company understands that its future relies in leveraging BigData and the power of the network over the existing markets for cloud-based HR or talent acquisition software.

Raj de Datta describes the shift well in his TechCrunch article “The Rise of BigData Apps and the Fall of SaaS.” The next big thing is data. BigData.

I’m not ready to write-off enterprise software businesses by any means, but ultimately cloud-based applications do become somewhat commoditized. Now that most major applications are “in the cloud,” differentiation comes down to architecture, features, and level of integration with other cloud-based systems.

If you’re an HR manager, can you really tell a huge difference between Oracle, SAP, Taleo, SuccessFactors, Cornerstone, SumTotal, and PeopleFluent? Workday claims they are the “next big thing” – but ultimately even new products like Workday become replaceable. This year I’ve talked with at least a dozen companies who are coming up for renewal on their cloud-based software and they are very willing to switch platforms. So the future of cloud-based software is wrapping all these great applications in rich, highly-integrated data.

A great example of this is trend is Salesforce.com.  We are a big user, and it always bothered me that we have to clean and maintain our own database of accounts when every other Salesforce customer is doing the same thing. Voila. Salesforce acquires Jigsaw, and now Data.com is born. You can now buy data to go along with your new CRM system.

Data, unlike software, becomes increasingly valuable as you collect more. In the enterprise Human Resources market companies are dying to get more data – data about candidates, data about workforce skills and demographics, data about salaries, and data about their own brand. Once this data is integrated with your cloud-based application, the value to a client skyrockets.

And even when you do buy your brand-new cloud-based applications for talent management, you still need to load them with data in order to make them work. Not only do you have to load all types of data about your employees, you also have to load job profiles, assessments, training modules, and dozens of other types of third party data. As HCM software companies mature, they will start building and adding their own data products to their offering.

Companies in the HR space are starting to figure this out. SHL, a leading global assessment provider recently launched its new Talent Analytics ”big data application.” This new platform gives customers access to tens of millions of assessments to compare candidates against the market and their competitors.

Data is sticky, proprietary, and ever-increasing in value.

The acquisition of Slideshare drives even greater data value – fueling both memberships and recruiting revenue.

LinkedIn also announced the acquisition of SlideShare, a great little company that has become the “YouTube” of corporate presentations. Slideshare is an addictive application that encourages you to share your best slide sets with others.

Not only does Slideshare further ignite LinkedIn’s membership business by extending the data people can add to their profiles, it also brings tremendous value to the corporate recruiting segment.

Think about this: Slideshare is a vast database of knowledge and expertise, all published through Powerpoint presentations that are easy to view, download, and share. Some of the most powerful thinkers and practitioners in all industries publish their deep expertise in SlideShare, and the content is trivially easy to find and view.

Once Slideshare is fully integrated into LinkedIn, we can expect the company to link data about slides to data about people.  (The company claims that there are already 9 million content uploads and we can expect that to explode.)

Every time an individual uploads one of their favorite Powerpoint decks their “profile” becomes more valuable to others. And since people can “like” and “comment” on slide sets, LinkedIn can start to see who the real experts are throughout the network.

Imagine the power of using this information to assess someone’s skills and experience. By looking at the traffic and ratings of an individual’s slides, and the relative “authority” of those who link and recommend these slides, LinkedIn can create one of the most powerful expertise-networks in the world.  The company has been working away on its “skills” functionality for a few years (look at the “skills” application under the “beta” link). This will further ignite LinkedIn’s ability to characterize and understand who the real experts are.

Why is skills information so valuable? Because when recruiters search for candidates, one of the most important challenges they face is “finding the right skills.” Companies pay search firms tens of thousands of dollars to find the best highly-skilled candidate. Putting more “skills-related” information into LinkedIn creates a new measure of authority and expertise.

(Skills have become the new currency of success. While experience and raw talent still matter, our research shows that jobs are becoming more and more specialized every year, so deep skills are what makes you succeed.  Read “The End of a Job as you Know It” for more details. )

Plus, of course, Slideshare dramatically increases the amount of information each LinkedIn user can upload – making the whole network far more valuable for individuals and members.

By the way, I noticed that LinkedIn recently removed several features from its free membership service (the ability to see who clicked on your profile, for example). Every time the company adds a new type of data-driven content, LinkedIn can come up with new, higher-value membership packages as well.

LinkedIn is really firing on all cylinders.  Watch the company continue to grow as it “fuels the corporate talent machine.”

I would expect LinkedIn’s hiring solutions segment to continue its growth as a percentage of revenue in the coming quarters. And with little competition in the BigData market for candidates, we should see this growth accelerate as the economy picks up steam.

By  Josh Bersin, Forbes Contributor

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Teamwork made Man brainier, say scientists

 Enlarge

Learning to work in teams may explain why humans evolved a bigger brain, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

Compared to his hominid predecessors, Homo sapiens is a cerebral giant, a riddle that scientists have long tried to solve.

The answer, according to researchers in Ireland and Scotland, may lie in social interaction.



Working with others helped Man to survive, but he had to develop a brain big enough to cope with all the social complexities, the experts believe. – Reuters Photo

In a computer model, the team simulated the human brain, allowing a network of neurons to evolve in response to a series of social challenges.

There were two scenarios. The first entailed two partners in crime who had been caught by the police, each having to decide whether or not to inform on the other.

The second had two individuals trapped in a car in a snowdrift and having to weigh whether to cooperate to dig themselves out or just sit back and let the other do it.

In both cases, the individual would gain more from selfishness.

But the researchers were intrigued to find that as the brain evolved, the individual was likelier to choose to cooperate.

"We cooperate in large groups of unrelated individuals quite frequently, and that requires cognitive abilities to keep track of who is doing what to you and change your behaviour accordingly," co-author Luke McNally of Dublin's Trinity College told AFP.

McNally pointed out, though, that cooperation has a calculating side. We do it out of reciprocity.

"If you cooperate and I cheat, then next time we interact you could decide: 'Oh well, he cheated last time, so I won't cooperate with him.' So basically you have to cooperate in order to receive cooperation in the future."

McNally said teamwork and bigger brainpower fed off each other.

"Transitions to cooperative, complex societies can drive the evolution of a bigger brain," he said.
"Once greater levels of intelligence started to evolve, you saw cooperation going much higher."

The study appears in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a journal published by Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.

Commenting on the paper, Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oxford University, said the findings were a valuable add to understanding brain evolution.

But he said there were physiological limits to cooperation.

Man would need a "house-sized brain" to take cooperation to a perfect level on a planet filled with humans.

"Our current brain size limits the community size that we can manage ... that we feel we belong to," he said.
Our comfortable "personal social network" is limited to about 150, and boosting that to 500 would require a doubling of the size of the brain.

"In order to create greater social integration, greater social cohesion even on the size of France, never mind the size of the EU, never mind the planet, we probably have to find other ways of doing it" than wait for evolution, said Dunbar.

By Mariette le Roux AFP

Google+ face-lift triggers jibes over extra white space

Yesterday's revamp of Google+ leaves a hefty amount of white space on certain pages, a design change that's brought out the comedian in many users.

 

(Credit: Screenshot by Lance Whitney/CNET)

 

What would you do with the extra white space now gracing the pages of Google+?

That's a question many users of the social network have been answering with the usual sarcastic spin we always love to see on the Internet.

Launching yesterday, the latest face-lift for Google+ added a slew of changes, including a new left-side navigation bar and new ways to interact with the people in your circles.

But the one change that's put people into full mocking mode is the new and extra-sized white space. Click on any virtually any Google+ page, and a good 40 percent is nothing but blank space.

The white-space flap has led to its own trending topic on Google+, where an array of users have chimed in with suggestions on how to use that space most effectively.

One user found the extra white space in front of his monitor a good spot to place his beer. Another put his cat in front of it. And a third angled his monitor into portrait mode to get rid of the white space entirely.

Personally, I'm a fan of white space. I think most Web pages are way too cluttered, so a little breathing room isn't so bad. But in this case, the search giant may have gone a bit overboard. The extra space kind of makes the pages seem off-balance, like they're going to tip over.

The obvious questions are why Google designed the pages this way and whether the company plans to use that extra real estate for other content down the road.

A Google rep told CNET that some of the changes were indeed created for future needs.

"So while it may look clutter-free now, the idea is to give us space that will allow us to quickly grow," the rep said. "With today's foundational changes we can move even faster--toward a simpler, more beautiful Google."

I have hunch, though, that the company may have planned the whole "extra white space" conspiracy as a savvy marketing strategy. It quickly turned into a trending topic and has generated lots of buzz. What better publicity could you ask for?

Lance Whitney Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related stories

• Google+ gets face-lift
• Your guide to the new features on Google+

CYBER bullying, a worldwide big problem

CYBER bullying has become more widespread among people today, especially with the emergence of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter (“Vengeance via the Net” – The Star, March 21).

Social networking sites offer people the chance to jot down the happenings in their daily lives, express opinions and share ideas, besides venting their frustrations.



However, cyber bullies take it a step too far when posting nasty and derogatory comments about others. The reason for their action is that they are prejudiced towards others.

Their prejudice stems from the fact that they think that the other person is not sociable and less outspoken. Due to jealousy, cyber bullies also target those who are popular.

Their methods of bullying include stealing other’s pictures or writing unpleasant remarks in order to attract attention.

Some work in groups so that they seem powerful, and the victims have no chance to turn the tables on them.

Cyber bullies will even use electronic means to superimpose the targeted victim’s face on a nude photo to destroy that person’s reputation.

The main motive is to hurt the other party, and cyber bullies are aware of their actions.

Cyber bullies are actually craving for attention. They lack confidence and they boost their pride and ego by destroying other people’s image. They enjoy the thrill of publicly shaming others in the mistaken idea that it will make them look good.

In actual fact, they are cowards hiding behind technology and using it as a weapon to humiliate others. They do not realise that their actions can have serious consequences.

The person they hurt may be harmed emotionally and psychologically. The victims suffer in silence because they do not know where to turn to for help. It will affect their daily routine.

It is advisable that victims of cyber bullying do not retaliate but instead inform their parents or the authorities.

Cyber bullies may say they are doing it for fun, but their actions will backfire should they be caught.

They are actually the ones who are in need of help. They may even take their bullying ways to the extreme, such as physical violence, if they are not stopped.
Counselling is the proper way to handle cyber bullies. Social networking sites are good outlets to voice opinions but one should not abuse the privilege. Use it right and one can eventually lead a fulfilling life.

By YANG CHIEN FEI, -Use social media right
Ampang, Selangor.

Yes, Facebook addicts, must get out to socialize more!

 

Facebook addicts should get out and socialise more

The Star/Asia News Network

WITH every new level of technology comes a corresponding wave of casualties.

From theft victims careless with their bank ATM cards to gullible folk cheated in online scams, the story is familiar enough.

So today we see the rise of Facebook addicts. The fact that this involves victims without criminal perpetrators does not make it any less serious.

Facebook addiction has been known to affect the psychological and physical health of its victims.

It also affects the personal relationships that victims had, or might have had, with others around them.

It is therefore a personal, domestic and social problem. The affliction is universally acknowledged by health professionals who have dubbed it Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD).

It is compulsive, invasive of one's personal life, distorts priorities, damages one's capacity to relate to others around them and disorientates one to reality.

There are withdrawal symptoms, pangs of “cold turkey” and it is all downright senseless and wasteful.
How can it then be addressed effectively?

Relying on addicts to stop their addiction is not going to work. Neither will legislation, since Facebook can all too easily be accessed through computers or smartphones.

With children and young adults, FAD is particularly pernicious because it eats away at their health in their formative years.

Yet, it is with young addicts that the problem is perhaps easier to avoid with prudent parental intervention.

Adults as parents or guardians therefore have a responsibility to ensure that those under their care do not fall victim to FAD. And as adults anyway, with or without others under their care, they need to set an example by not falling victim themselves.

If push comes to shove, there is always the off switch.

For Malaysians to “have the most Facebook friends in the world” may at first sound gratifying, but in reality it is a condition ridden with problems and liabilities.

The best friends tend to be those you encounter in the flesh. A “friend” in cyberspace may be very unreal, whether as a notional friend of a friend, a fictional character, or even a predator.

If Malaysians have the most virtual friends in the world, it may well be that we have the least real friends in the world. And that would be another tragedy in itself.



Hi, I was a Facebook addict

I REFER to “Hooked on FB”  (Jan 20), on Facebook Addicton Disorder (FAD), and agree with Dr Nivashinie Mohan’s statement that people with this disorder “continue to go undetected because most addicts do not realise or admit they have a problem”.

If there had been a circle of addicts on the floor at the FAD forum, I would have introduced myself and said: “Hello everyone, I was a Facebook addict”.

When I decided to navigate to the “deactivate account” button last December, I thought I was making the hardest decision I would ever make, having been a Facebook member since 2006.

I did not have hundreds and thousands of friends (most of whom we ignore anyway and just concentrate on the five to ten so-called friends), but it was the excitement of waking up every morning literally dying to know what the rest of the world was up to.

I was an active lurker looking into my friends’ beautifully edited photos of where they went on holiday, what they cooked for their children last night, friends updating their status every five minutes (as if having a huge following on Twitter wasn’t enough) somebody’s wedding, graduation and etc.

After a while, I felt funny. Why is this so important? Why can’t we call, visit or text each other instead? Wouldn’t this be more intimate, more humanly possible to touch base sans the social network?

Aren’t we concerned about the security of our information over the Internet? A paedophile would have a field day ogling at our children’s profiles and the repercussions would be devastating.

And aren’t political and racial updates overly nauseating?

Don’t make me start with friends who actually upload positive thoughts by the dozen until you actually think they are really closet pessimists who crave attention (yes, that is yet another disorder).

Then again, self realisation is the best way to overcome any disorder, and admitting it is the next step to get oneself out of the problem. Who knows, maybe FAD sufferers may get help from support groups or toll free numbers in future.

To each his own, as the old saying goes.

For the majority, it is necessary to maintain one’s Facebook account as it is a vital part of one’s life and we are, as long as we are the ones in control.

For the minority, like me, we choose not to be the norm and will find other alternative communicating routes to get our messages across.

SUZLENE ZAKARIAH,
Seri Kembangan.

Have clear policy on FB for workers 

Bosses must devise solutions to deal with this IT challenge!

I WOULD like to share my opinion in relation to “Bosses face problem with workers wasting time on FB” (The Star, Jan 20). The use of social networking websites and its easy accessibility has posed a lot more challenges and problems to the employer than has been pointed out.

Social network, depending on the nature of the work, can be good or bad for productivity. For some it’s one of the most cost and time effective way to promote and achieve sales targets.

Some government agencies and NGOs use it in their work to reach more people and to better know their stakeholders.

For those who work long hours or are on the graveyard shift and are detached from family and friends, it may help reduce stress.

Social networking can be a recruitment tool. Some employers and recruitment agents use it to do background checks on employees.

On the converse, it can severely affect productivity as employees waste countless hours on social networking. When done in the office, it increases unwarranted Internet traffic and slows down office network speed.

A major issue which has got a lot of attention globally is employees making statements about their employers that are considered negative by the employer.

While statements which tend to lower the reputation of the employer in public can be considered libel, it is more complicated when it comes to employment relationships. There are two schools of thought.

In the UK, the employment tribunal upheld a decision by Apple to sack an employee for posting on Facebook his displeasure about his iPhone and various aspects of his company even though his remarks only reached certain people due to the privacy settings.

In the US, the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) came to an opposite conclusion and found illegal a company’s decision to fire an employee based on disparaging remarks about her employer and on a work place incident she sent from her home computer 
.
I feel the UK approach is better. A negative statement by an employee can severely affect the employer. The company’s reputation is at stake, and it may affect the employer’s business goodwill and profits. Some job seekers might shun the company purely based on hearsay.

And, in a more sinister way, social networking can be used to disrupt industrial harmony by organising illegal strikes to cripple an entire industry and bring down the economy.

I don’t feel that a strict policy on social networking may discourage young ones from joining a particular company.

The main concern for the working young, or everyone for that matter, is the pay and benefits, and of course job satisfaction.

An employee frequently using social network at work should face disciplinary action to serve as a reminder to the perpetrator and to show others how serious the employer views such complacency.

And of course for the company to take disciplinary action it has to have rules to begin with. As long as there are no sanctions, employees will continually flout company rules and slack.

But again some might argue that it may not always be practical in real life as the world and society are addicted to social networking.

Some young employees, fresh to the working world, have no clue on responsible working etiquette and may think that employers don’t mind them engaging in social networking during work hours.

It is important that a clear policy is drawn up by the employers and brought to the attention of employees on how the company feels about it and how it affects them.

The responsibility of discipline at work does not start with the HR/IR practitioners. Our education system should have an active role in educating and shaping young ones who will be joining the work force one day.

Not only institutes of higher education like colleges and universities but schools as well should inculcate responsible work etiquette which includes being on the social network during work hours, among other things. Sadly, this is lacking.

While it is almost impossible to prevent employees from accessing social network sites, as it can be easily accessed through their smart phones, both employers and capable HR/IR practitioners have to come up with proper solutions to deal with whatever challenges advancement of technology throws at them.

JOHN MARK,Segamat.

Related post: 
You addicted to Facebook ?

You addicted to Facebook ?

Hooked on Facebook

By P. ARUNA aruna@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: If you prefer to interact on Facebook rather than have a normal conversation, you could be suffering from a psychological disorder, an expert warned.

Gleneagles Hospital Kuala Lumpur neuro-psychologist Dr Nivashinie Mohan said that Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD) continues to go undetected because most addicts do not realise or want to admit that they have a problem.

With Malaysians spending more hours and having the most number of friends on Facebook, many had become addicted to it, she said.



“A lot of people do not see it as a real problem because they don't think it is as harmful as addiction to tobacco or drugs.

“But it is a problem that needs to be treated like any other addiction that prevents you from going on with your daily activities,” she said, adding that the disorder could cause anxiety and depression.

The disorder term FAD was coined by American psychologists to describe the addiction to Facebook.

Dr Nivashinie said that Facebook addicts had difficulty carrying on a normal conversation with people as they preferred to “poke”, “like” or comment on what their friends posted on the website.

She said the addicts felt the need to be connected to their Facebook friends all the time.

“They fear that they may miss out on something important if they don't constantly check the website,” she added.

On average, Dr Nivashinie said people spent about an hour each day on the website.

“But if you are cancelling plans with friends and family so you can spend the time on Facebook, it is a clear sign that you are addicted,” she said.

She added that addicts usually lost interest in school or were not productive at work because they were constantly on the website.

Stressing that the problem could be very serious, she said: “Sometimes these addicts don't even enjoy logging on to Facebook. They just feel they have to.

“Some people even break into cold sweat at the thought of not going on Facebook for a day or two. And they feel depressed when nobody communicates with them or responds to something they posted on the website.”

To overcome the disorder, she said addicts must first acknowledge that they have a problem.

“It may not be possible for them to quit Facebook immediately or completely,” Dr Nivashinie said. “They can begin by reducing and limiting the hours they spend on the website daily.”



Disconnected from real life

By WONG PEK MEI pekmei@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: Social networking can be addictive and stunt personal interaction, say experts.

People frequent websites like Facebook due to easy access via mobile devices, but “such convenience is distracting people from having real social interaction with another human being”, said psychologist and counsellor Adnan Omar.

“For example, a couple missed an opportunity to have true interaction with each other by going out for dinner, only to be surfing the Net or checking e-mail on their mobile devices,” he told The Star recently.

It was reported on Jan 10 that a nationwide study showed that Malaysian mobile web users on average spend 20% of their time on social media like Facebook and Twitter, 18% on music or videos, 17% on playing games, 14% on searches for general information and 13% on e-mail.

Clueless condition: Many Malaysians may not be aware that they have Facebook Addiction Disorder.

 

Adnan was concerned that society might lose its ability to connect with the people within.
“We may know people in Russia but we do not know our own neighbours although they are just one wall away,” he said.

“If you're spending more than 25 hours per week social networking for other than work or academic reasons, you're addicted to it. It does not help that the Internet is readily available and you don't have to turn it off.”

Adnan said addicts had the urge to check their phone constantly and felt “empty deep inside” if they did not do so.

“When people post their pictures and updates, they are waiting for compliments to make them feel fulfilled. The other reason is that they need to kill time and would feel useless or uncomfortable if they do not do anything.

“Technology creates activities but not necessarily productivity although it makes us feel that way,” Adnan said.

Psychologist Dr Goh Chee Leong said the phone has become an important companion for “in between” times like when a person is waiting for someone.

The dean of HELP University College's Behavioural Sciences Faculty said people who often network generally have an active social life although “there are extreme cases”.

Facebook takes over mind and body

PETALING JAYA: Facebook addict Lim said her life now revolves around the social networking website.

Lim, who is in her 50s, admitted to a psychologist that she no longer had normal conversations with her family as most of her free time was spent in front of the computer.

She said she was addicted to Facebook games “Farmville” and “Baking Life” and would plan her daily activities around the website.

Lim said she would start her virtual “crop planting” or “baking” in the morning before work to make sure that it was completed in time for her to resume the game during lunch break.

“I have not had a good night's sleep in a long time as I can't log off until the wee hours of the morning,” she said.

Another addict, who wanted to be known only as Satish, said he logged on to Facebook every half hour.
“If I can't go on Facebook for some reason, I feel uneasy and can't concentrate on my work,” said the 30-year-old engineer.

His addiction became worse after he bought a smartphone.

Bosses face problem with workers wasting time on FB

PETALING JAYA: Employers are increasingly faced with the problem of employees wasting their time on Facebook and other social networking websites during office hours.

“Many companies have blocked their employees from accessing Facebook in the office, but this measure is not always effective as many of them can still access the website on their smartphones,” said Malaysian Employers Federation executive director Shamsuddin Bardan.

Although most employers wanted to stop employees from chatting or playing games online, he noted that companies in fields such as entertainment and media needed to access the social websites to keep up with the latest trends and news.

How the problem of time-wasting on websites was handled depended on “the nature of business” of the companies concerned, said Shamsuddin.

He added that young people might not be interested in working for companies which were too strict and did not allow them to log on to Facebook.

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong said that Facebook users were “inviting trouble” if they constantly updated their status with information on their whereabouts and what they were doing.

“There are young girls who even update their status to say that they are going to take a bath,” he said.

He added that 14 female Facebook users had reported to the department that they were cheated and blackmailed last year.

Some life-affirming thoughts for a tech New Year

Tweet

by Chris Matyszczyk

 

(Credit: CC KhE/Flickr)
 

Viewing the tech world, as I do, largely from the fringes, I sometimes wonder just how seriously it takes itself.

Make a joke about Apple and invective will descend on you. Make a joke about Google+ and expect to be told to "eat a large bowl of raw d***"-- oh, and to be followed by a lot more people on Google+.

The New Year will, no doubt, see more intensity surrounding tech companies, tech products, and tech personalities.

Some people will work beyond their physical and mental capacities. Some people will believe that killing Google, Apple, Facebook is everything that exists in life. Some people will lose perspective entirely about what's important and what is mere group-speak.



So to celebrate the New Year, here are the words of a palliative-care nurse who's spent much of her life listening to people on their deathbeds. These truths were first published on the Arise India forum but were then republished by the extraordinary writer Kelly Oxford.

These, then, are what this nurse saw as the Top Five Regrets of the Dying. Perhaps they might seem obvious, perhaps not. But their raw reality becomes evident when, as the nurse says, people realized they were experiencing their last few days on Earth.



1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me. This was, apparently, the most common regret. In tech terms, think of everything that is expected of people. Many of those who leave college believe that tech is the only place worth working these days. They don't always consider whether they'll enjoy it or not. Most people in the world are now being told that if they're not on a social network, they don't exist. So they spend hours every day peering into screens. The life that is true to you isn't always easy to identify, never mind to live.

2. I wish I didn't work so hard. Self-evident, perhaps. But surely still something worth thinking about in a world in which personal insecurity is now being traded as if it were just another commodity. We're scared, so we work harder. The harder we work, the more scared we become that this is all there is and all there ever will be.

3. I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings. The nurse talks about how people developed illnesses that she believes were directly related to the "bitterness and resentment" they felt as a result of living a false life. In tech terms, how many people truly believe they are creating a new tomorrow? And how many feel they are staring into their screens in order to line someone else's pocket and ego, without ever themselves being appreciated for what they do and who they are?

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends. Yes, these people never had Facebook. But are those Facebook friends really your friends? Have you let go of your real friends because you're too busy with your Facebook friends? As the nurse puts it: "It is all comes down to love and relationships in the end. That is all that remains in the final weeks, love and relationships." Which would mean real relationships.

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier. "When you are on your deathbed, what others think of you is a long way from your mind," says the nurse. And yet here we are in the real, techified life, where what others think of us matters more than ever. If someone says something bad about us on the Web (something that is so very, very easy and therefore likely), we are mortified--more so, because the bad words will always live in some electronic physical existence. The bad words will never go away because we can find them. Ergo, so can everyone else. Yet what this nurse tells us is that the opinions of others matter far, far less than we might think at the time.

Perhaps this seems a somber way to wish everyone a Happy New Year. But the one thing we have that those of whom the nurse writes don't is time. Here's looking forward to a very happy 2012 and, hopefully, one that is very true to each of our individual selves.

Chris Matyszczyk

Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.

Newscribe : get free news in real time