This morning we published a great piece by my colleague Alex Iskold that asked if Google should be afraid of Facebook. Alex concluded that, no, Facebook is not in the same league as Google and Larry and Sergey should be breathing easy. I'll briefly offer a contrarian view in light of the massive influx of cash that Facebook received yesterday, and more importantly, who it came from.Alex argues that in order for Facebook to compete on Google's level, they will need "serious cash." Yesterday's $240 million investment from Microsoft is not chump change, and if unsubstantiated rumorspan out, the total amount that Facebook raised could be nearer to $750 million. That may still be a marketing error for Google, but enough for Facebook to expand comfortably for awhile. And what if Facebook gets into search?In order to do that, said Alex, "they would have to build their own search engine or partner with someone." The former was always unlikely, but the latter is exactly what they've done. And not only did they partner with any someone, they partnered with someone who 1. is already gunning for Google in the search space, and 2. is already the 3rd most used search engine (in the US) according to comScore.Greg Sterling predicted this morningthat Microsoft Live Search on Facebook was all but inevitable -- and I'd have to agree. It's a no-brainer. Google already powers search on MySpace, Yahoo! does on bebo, so Live Search on Facebook makes sense -- the technical investment is minuscule and the potential return is mammoth. If Facebook's 30 million monthly usersstart using Microsoft for web searches, that could have a significant impact on the market.Deepak, a commenter on Alex's post this morning, isn't buying it. "Not sure a search box will work," he wrote. "[The] search box for Firefox gets all [my] use. My Portal is my browser." If it is indeed the case that people generally use their browser's search box for the majority of their searching, then a Microsoft search box on Facebook may not make much of a dent. But, I do not think that is how the average Internet user behaves. Google is the default search engine on Firefox, which has about 15% of the market, while Live is the default search engine for Internet Explorer, which has about 78.5% of the market. And yet, Google controls 57% of the search market, and Microsoft just of 10%. So clearly, the browser search box is less of a factor than other entry points.So why should Google worry? As Alex points out, Google is an advertising company, but one that is still very reliant on search. And while Facebook still has yet to prove that it can really monetize its traffic, Microsoft has certainly proven that they can make serviceable search technology. Facebook already fields over 600 million searches per month-- if they can turn those site searches into web searches, that would be a boon for Microsoft."Exposing the huge Facebook audience to Live Search and monetizing that traffic with paid results is, I'm guessing, a powerful motivator behind this investment," wrote Greg Sterling today. I agree. Facebook on its own probably wasn't enough to worry Google. But Microsoft with a hook into Facebook's large and rapidly growing user base, might make them look over their shoulder with a bit more apprehension.
digg_url = 'http://digg.com/tech_news/Poll_US_Attitudes_About_Internet_Are_Insane';digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff';digg_skin = 'compact';Zogby International and 463 Communications released the resultslast night of an interesting and well executed poll about the attitudes US adults have about the internet. Nearly 10,000 respondents were included and I presume the companies did not seek out the craziest 10,000 people in America (only 20% were from the West Coast, for example) - so these are probably pretty valid results.To summarize: an alarming percentage of respondents are open to brain implants that allow them to access the internet with their minds and that allow their children's locations to be tracked, they think government censorship of online video content is acceptable, the internet makes them feel closer to God and less close their significant others - but their own identities on the internet are not very important to them. This is frightening stuff.Among the findings:* 24% of respondents said the Internet could serve as a replacement for a significant other, including 31% of single people, 31% of self described political "progressives" and 18% of those who consider themselves "very conservative." * More than 1 in 4 respondents have a profileon a social networking site, including 78% of those ages 18-24, 32% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans. Only 14% of respondents said the internet is an important part of what they consider to be their identity. That's the aggregate number, I'd like to see what percentage of 18-24 say it's an important part of their identity. These numbers may or may not be important for those of us watching digital identity controversies involving data and identity portability and control.* Brain Implants.Thank you Zogby for asking about brain implants. "How likely would you be to implant a device into your brain that enabled you to use your mind to access the internet if it could be done safely?" 11% of respondents said they were very or somewhat likely to do so. Only 4% said they were not sure! 3 out of 4 said they were not at all likely, but that's not very reassuring.* Kid tracking chip implants.18% said they would feel better being able to track their child's where about more than they would feel uneasy putting a device in their child for that purpose. Children do become adults and just imagine if that tracking device could also be used to access the internet! Oh the future, how exciting it is. * Tracking implants are probably most appropriate for people who generally trust authority figures to watch out for their best interests. If you ever took serious issue with the authorities you'd probably regret having a tracking implant in your arm. How do respondents feel about government control in regard to all this stuff?More than half of respondents believe that internet content, like video, should be controlled in some way by the government. Only 36% said the blocking of internet videowould be unconstitutional. Since uncensored internet video so far has brought our society to the brink of absolute ruin, I can understand those beliefs.* God.When you're putting a web-enabled tracking microchip implant in your child's brain and calling for government control of online content - how does all of this make you feel about God? So far, 10% of respondents said the internet has made them feel closer to God, including 20% of Born Again Christians. Wait until you get that brain implant that lets you access the internet with your mind - you'll feel like God. Until you fall on the wrong side of that government regulation you were so excited about and are easily tracked by the same chip in your head. Then you'll feel like you're in hell. You will be, we all will be - thanks in no small part to the beliefs captured in this survey. Mine is just another voice, from someone who spends too much time in the hive mind already, urging you to say no to the implant (and go hug your significant other).
digg_url = 'http://digg.com/tech_news/Since_when_did_a_Fake_Blogger_Steve_become_a_Reliable_Source';digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff';digg_skin = 'compact';There are not one, but twostories on Techmeme this morning broken by Fake Steve Jobs, a.k.a. Forbes' Daniel Lyons. Both were repeated on a number of blogs. Yes, we know who Fake Steve is now, and yes he's a credible reporter working for a respected publication, but bear in mind that these stories were reported with no sources and on the blog of a fictional character. Yet, they were taken at face value by a number of prominent bloggers.The first story Lyon's "broke" was about the supposed imminent demise of PodTech. "Well, they've had a good run but apparently the Casa de Scoble is heading for the big sleep," wrote Lyons. "Or is it the dirt nap? I can never remember. No announcement yet but we hear it's imminent." It was picked up by TechCrunch, Valleywagand othersand repeated as if the original source was, well, Lyons and not his fictional persona (the one that just released a book).PodTech VP Robert Scoble responded this morning by ripping into the reportsas "total, 100% bull####. Not even deserving of a response."The other major story Fake Steve "reported" on was a rumored $500 million investmentin Facebook by a pair of hedgefunds. Oh wait, I mean "Faceberg" and "hedgetards." At IP Democracythey ran the story with the text, "Despite the satirical nature of the blog, this looks real." Certainly, of the two "scoops" Lyons issued through his persona, this is probably the more credible given that rumors of an additional investment in Facebook from VCs or hedgefunds alongside Microsoft have been floating around since before the deal was announced yesterday. Further, Lyons' colleague Elizabeth Corcoran repeated the rumoron a Forbes blog this morning (though it is unclear whether she has her own sources, or her source is Fake Steve...).Even if the Facebook investment rumor pans out, since when is a fictional persona who appends the suffix "tard" to just about every other word a credible source? Even if the voice behind Fake Steve is a real reporter, it doesn't seem wise to report rumors that emanate from his blog as if they're coming from Lyons and not his character. If Lyons has real news to report, he should be responsible in his reporting and use Forbes (or the Forbes tech blog) as his outlet. His fictional persona is just that, a fictional persona, and anything it says should be taken with about as much salt as an ocean.
Read/WriteWeb is currently undergoing a server upgrade, so there may be issues with comments in particular for a little while. Please bear with us, we will get everything running smoothly again asap.
digg_url = 'http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Should_Google_be_afraid_of_Facebook';digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff';digg_skin = 'compact';In the latest issue of Fortune magazine, Josh Quittner wrotea page length article entitled Look Who's Worried Now(online here), in which he argues that Googleis increasingly worried about Facebook. He says that Facebook is taking Google's talent, taking its traffic,and is using its platform to power a new Internet micro-economy.During the Web 2.0 Summit last week, Jeff Huber, Google's Vice President of Engineering, proclaimed fromthe stage that the platform wars are over and the web has won. Clearly, Google does not want to have to deal separatelywith a Facebook silo, since its already has an algorithm for indexing entire web (though Google has recently released their own Facebook applications). The real question is this: Can Facebook really hurt Google?And if the answeris yes, then how and when?Especially given today's newsthat Google lost out to Microsoft for the rights to acquire a stake in Facebook, the question of whether Google should be worried is a pertinent one.Google's Social AmbitionsGoogle may not be afraid of Facebook, but it sees value in social applications.Google Bookmarks, Google Notebook, Orkut, and recently Social Mapsareall among top priorities for the company. Google co-founder Sergey Brin said todaythat Google has advertising relationships with approximately 20 social networks.Why? Two important reasons. First, there is hardly anyone left on the web who does not recognizethe viral, network-driven power of social applications. Second, Google's strategy across the board is to get into as manyhot areas as it can and build free tools to support its core business - advertising.In truth, Google had a social strategy long before Facebook released its much-hyped platform. And just because Googleis focusing on the social web, does not mean that it is a defensive play against Facebook. Surely Google would have liked to havebeen able to get cozy with Facebook today, but for Google, Facebook's inventory is a drop in the bucket.It is not critical, and as we will argue below, Google is not likely to be terribly worried about Facebook.Google and Facebook Operate In Different AreasGoogle and Facebook are fundamentally in two different types of businesses. Yes, both of them monetize mainly via advertising,but Google is a web wide technology and Facebook is a single web site. In a post earlier thisyear, we argued that Google is the utlimate money making machine because of its distributed nature. For Facebook to get our attention,we have to explicitely sign in, whereas Google is everywhere.To argue that with time people will spend more time on Facebook than searching the web is absurd. Facebook is leisure, whilesearching the web is leisure, and more often, work. Even though Facebook is a platform, it is still built around a vertical. Andany vertical is just a subset of the web. Google, on the other hand, has built a mesh that covers the entire web.Google Still Has Superior Search TechnologySome might argue that Facebook can become the starting point for people to discover the web. At least right now, though,we are quite far from that. Facebook is just a social utility, an entry into the social graph, but not thestarting page for discovering the rest of the web. Assuming that Facebook is going to try to go that route (which is unlikely),they would have to build their own search engine or partner with someone.Meanwhile, Google still has the superior search technology. Its two closest rivals, Yahoo! and Microsoft, aretrying very hard to match the search leader, but have not yet had any luck in catching up. The main reasons for Google's massive lead include an early start, a very good algorithm,great infrastructure, and inertia. People are used to Google being their search engine and "googling" has even replacedsearching as the verb for finding information online. So until there is a major leap for the better in the search experience at its rivals, Google is notgoing to be replaced.Show Me The MoneyFacebook has a small handful of options when it comes to monetizing its audience: ads, tax, or products. The second option is out of the question. After touting itselfas a great free platform, Facebook can't start charging application developers. The third route, selling products, isiffy at best as a source of real revenue. Facebook is not set up as a store and the platform has no commerce aspect to it. So this leaves advertising.The only kind of advertising that makes sense for Facebook is contextual, but so far, their efforts have been less thanimpressive. Most of the ads I've seen invite me to check out lonely college girls and my wife doesn't approve of me doing that.Seriously, what can be successfully advertised on Facebook? Products? Movies? TV shows? There is certainly a range of things that will work,but the question is how to effectively market them?Some evidence suggests thatusers of Digg, another social site, are 3 times less likely to click on an ad than Google users. One of the reasons is that when people come to Google they are looking for specific things. When they search, it doesn't matter to them if the top results are ads as long as they're are relevant. So people click.On the other hand, when people are on a social networking site like Facebook, they want to socialize, theyare not explicitly looking for products or information. Over the last year, I've heard several anecdotal stories about AdSense being lesseffective in terms of lead conversion compared to ads placed on the main Google search results. Once again, the reason is likely to be that people are not lookingfor specific things when they are at non-search sites.The bottom line is that until Facebook proves that its audience is monetizable, they are not a threat to Google.The Market(ing) GamesSo if Google has nothing to really worry about, why might it worry? In a word - buzz.Google was the last cool kid on the block, however, it hasn't enjoyed being the "cool" tech company in awhile. Until Facebook came along, though, there weren't any other hot companies to steal Google's wind. Facebook hasn't taken any money yet, but they have taken a little wind out of Google's sails. 2007 will be remembered as the year of Facebook (just like last year was the year of YouTube - which of course by proxy meant Google).But it is going to be hard for Facebook to turn that wind into dollars. Google is still at the top of its game, with a stock that it reaching all time highs every day on Wall Street.It plays the simplicity game very well, it does a good job marketing its products, and it is sticking with the freesoftware concept as its bait. Facebook succeeded in generating a lot of buzz and hype around itself this year, but out marketing Google in thelong term is going to be tough.If Facebook does want to go head to head with Google, it will need serious cash. The $240 million influx of dough and $15 billion valuation it received today will help to allow Facebook to try to organize all that wind into a storm. But to do that,in addition to spending marketing dollars it will need to figure out how to become a web wide company and how to effectively monetize its users. Microsoft's experienced display ad sales team (via their aQuantive acquisition) should be able to help Facebook with the latter.ConclusionGoogle is not worried about Facebook, it is worried about its business, its future and its image.There is no evidence to indicate that Facebook is an actual threat. More likely, this is a PR situation for Google.Of course, Google is going to press on with its social strategy, but simply because it makes sense, not out of fear of any other company. As for Facebook,after the initial excitement is over, the company will need to show that it can make money. Time will tell if Facebook is worthall the hype and its fresh massive valuation.
Last week while in San Francisco I got the chance to visit Current's offices, to check out the launchof their new Current.comwebsite. I spoke to Robin Sloan (Online Product Strategist) and Joshua Katz (President of Marketing), who gave me a demo and overview of their strategy. I came away impressed by Current.com's stunning design - but more importantly the new Web Nativefunctionality that Current has built into (and around) Television watching. This post explores that innovation, which may well change our television viewing habits over time.Current's Pod format - more on this belowIntroduction to CurrentCurrent was founded by Joel Hyatt and Al Gore and launched August 1, 2005. Gore serves as its Chairman and has understandably been the focus of much of the media coverage Current has received. [FWIW I sat in Al Gore's office in my visit, although the man himself wasn't present]The TV Network and accompanying website specifically targets "young adults" - i.e. the MySpace and Facebook generation. The 'read/write' principle is very much in effect on the Network and website, because Current encourages TV viewers to create content and engage with it on a very interactive level. For example viewers can create their own ads, called vcams (for 'viewer created ads'; I was told that viewers much prefer them to professional ads). As of now, the Current TV Network reaches 52 M people worldwide, 42 M of those in the US.As a Reuters reporton the current.com launch noted, Current aims to be "the first fully integrated online and television network". Website users can create their own content, and there is a digg-style interface for voting on it. Comments on stories may include text, video, photos and other forms of media. For example users can post a YouTube video. The Current folks told me that in the private beta, they noticed that users would post videos and other media that was only tangentially related to the original story - which they said produced a more diverse conversation around a topic. Current.com was in a private beta for about 8 weeks before its launch last week. Another thing to note is that Current is not purely user-generated - it has a strong editorial voice and many of the frontpage stories are editorially selected.ViewpointsThe first innovative feature I want to highlight is Viewpoints, which is a part of the .com site that Al Gore himself envisaged. It's a facewall based around a specific topic; usually political or current affairs based. When you first navigate to the Viewpoints page, there is a tagcloud of topics, which then desolves into a facewall of the main topic - today it is "Torture In War". When you click on a face, a 1 minute video of that person opens. There are 11-12 topics currently, many of them related to the US election. Al Gore himself has posted to Viewpoints, but the Current team were quick to tell me that Gore is just one of the wall of faces - and doesn't get special treatment. Gore hopes this type of system will encourage politicians to become more topic-focused in the election and other politcal issues.The design is stunning, but more importantly the format works - you're limited to 1 minute to make your point and the community can vote and respond with their own 1-minute videos. The example below shows a video with a 73% disapproval rating and it was responded to by 1 person. The Current folks told me that this format results in more nuanced, personal opinions. Because it is "peer to peer" (in the human sense), people can quickly influence their peers by uploading their viewpoint. What's more, the best of these clips will be run on Current's TV shows.'On TV' and the Concept of PodsThe other main feature on the Current.com website that impressed me was the wagon wheel-like TV programming guide. It is under the tab labeled On TV. It uses a concept called "pods", which were described to me as Current's form of programming. Each pod is a chunk of content, displayed on an interactive wheel. Here is a screenshot:As with Viewpoints, the pods are visually very slick and interactive. I really have to tip my hat to the Current designers, they have done a great job with the site. The philosophy behind the pod is fascinating too. It's designed to cater to their young audience - who are prone to multi-tasking. I was told that 70-75% of Current's audience has a computer in the room while they watch TV. And while they are watching TV, they are interested in learning more about what they're watching - e.g. constantly refreshing the website and getting content from their community. That's the theory anyway, and the pod format was built around it. The UI makes it very simple to consume the media (video, music), click on responses (uploaded community videos), find related information, even do "assignments" about the topic. As well as showing what times the shows are on TV, of course.Current's Joshua Katz (President of Marketing) described the pod to me as "what FM radio used to be in the early days", when one song led to another and there were connections - and (back then) there was still a wide variety of content. A note on the Current demographic: it is roughly 18-34 years old, but perhaps more importantly they're targeting "influencers" - people who want new info constantly, share it via the Web, and have on average 25-60 people who they interact with online (IM with, etc). This is the Internet age audience, not couch potatoes with a remote control glued to their hand.Conclusion: Reaching for New Form of TVWhat I like about Current, apart from the awesome design, is that they're attempting to change the way television is consumed and created. It's a much more interactive experience, where the audience participates and creates. I buy the theory that young people are watching tv and on a computer accessing the Web at the same time. So the pod format is, in my view, an innovative new UI built around this new form of television watching. It's a bit like when Google created Gmail - they built it for the Web, rather than copying the desktop paradigm. Likewise, Current has developed their pod UI based on a new form of TV/Web experience, rather than copying traditional TV programming formats.Of course, for any TV Network, the content has to be compelling - so it remains to be seen how Current fares long-term on that count. But on the technology and concepts behind Current, what do you think? Is this type of TV/Web format the future of TV?
We wrote earlier this morningthat Google and Microsoft were competing for a stake in Facebook, the super-hot social networking platform. Earlier, the NY Post was reporting that Google was the frontrunner. But a WSJ reporthas now confirmed that Microsoft won out:"Microsoft Corp. agreed to invest $240 million for a minority stake in Facebook Inc. that values the social-networking site at $15 billion. As part of the deal, the two companies expanded their advertising agreement."The amount invested is lower than expectations, which were around $500M. Microsoft's new deal with Facebook is all about bolstering their existing advertising arrangement - Microsoft will now sell Facebook's international display ads, in addition to the banner ads it already sells on the US site. However this deal leaves room for Facebook to run its own advertising network, which we have been discussingon Read/WriteWeb. Facebook's ad system will likely use social profiling to target ads, given the wealth of such data that Facebook has.UPDATE: Hitwisejust sent this data, which shows Facebook's growth in the US market over the past year:Facebook.com was the ninth most visited website (as ranked by Hitwise) in the U.S. receiving .96% of all Internet visits for the week ending 10/20/07.U.S. traffic to Facebook.com has increased 102% YOY comparing the week ending 10/20/07 versus 10/21/06.Among a custom category of leading social networking websites, Facebook.com received 15% of U.S. visits for the week ending 10/20/07. That was second most among social networking websites behind MySpace.com, who received 76%. Windows Live Spaces received .40% for the same week.Facebook.com received '9.90%' of its U.S. traffic from Search Engines for the week ending 10/20/2007. Of that traffic, MSN Search and Live Search combined for .46% to Facebook.com last week. Google sent 6.82% percent of U.S. traffic while Yahoo! Search send 1.34% of traffic for the week ending 10/20/07.U.S visits for Facebook.com among users ages 35 and over have increased 19% comparing the week ending 10/20/07 versus 10/21/06.
There are more and more ways to get your instant messaging done, with a large number of new online and offline clients from third parties. With so many instant messaging options, it's hard to figure out which one to use. Below, we've listed a large number of online and offline instant messengers, as well the various protocols supported by each, so that you can more easily find the one that's right for you. There's really not all that much difference between each except in interface and supported protocols. Thebest option for you will likely be the one that supports the networks your friends connect to and has an interface that you feel comfortable using. If there are any we've missed, please mention them in the comments. (Note: we did not link to any official offline clients.)Online ClientsName: MeeboSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, JabberName: FlickIMSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, JabberName: Kool IMSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Gadu-Gadu, XfireName: eBuddySupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, MySpaceName: ILoveIMSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, webcams/video chatName: RadiusIMSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalkName:Imo.imSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalkName: MabberSupports: ProprietaryJabber-based (aimed at mobiles)Name: IMUnitiveSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, gim (proprietary)Name: SnimmerSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, JabberName: EasyMessengerSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, ICQ, JabberName: MessengerFXSupports: MSNName: IMhahaSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, QQName: Google TalkSupports: GTalk, JabberName: Yahoo! Web Messenger (web.im)Supports: Yahoo!, MSNName: MSN Web MessengerSupports: Yahoo!, MSNName: AIM ExpressSupports: AIMName: ICQ2GoSupports: ICQName: JWChat - Jabber Web ChatSupports: JabberName: Trillian Astra (closed alpha)Supports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, MySpace, iChatOffline ClientsName: TrillianSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, IRCPlatforms: WindowsName: PidginSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, QQ, MySpace, iChat, IRC, Lotus, NovellPlatforms: Windows, UNIXName: AdiumSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, QQ, iChat, Lotus, Novell, LiveJournalPlatforms: Mac OS XName: AirTalkerSupports: AIM, Yahoo!, MSN, GTalk, ICQ, Jabber, MySpace, Friendster, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, bloggingPlatforms: Windows, Mac OS X (via Adobe AIR), also has web versionName: Miranda IMSupports: AOL, Yahoo!, MSN, ICQ, Jabber, Gadu-Gadu, IRC, IAX, Tlen, NetsendPlatforms: Windows
Comedic web animation house and video sharing site JibJabhas raised a second round of funding; this $3m B round from previous investors Polaris Venture Partners makes more than $6m total the company has banked from investors. Credit for breaking the specific amount of funding goes to Dan Primack at PeHub, who is the manwhen it comes to digging up financial information.$6 Million for Web Cartoons?It might sound crazy, but today's JibJab B round is just the latest chapter in an evolving story. Professional content production companies are getting funded left and right. While this was supposed to be the beginning of the era of user generated video - the reality shaking out is more complicated than that. Specifically, advertisers are just not comfortable with the brand risk inherent in user generated content. That is changing slowly and it may continue to over time - but there's likely to be a huge market for shops like JibJab long into the future. Likewise, video tools are now commodities and it's all about the content you've got in your video service. Professional content is good, professional humor is great, say investors.Witness the following, for example. Will Ferrell's Funny or Dieraised millions from Google backers Sequia and launched in April. Media analyst Jeff Jarvis investedin Black20, a small comedy video troup, in May. And venture funded ad sales network SpotRunnerspent some of its VC money on funding its own original content creation company, 60frames. Ad networks creating their own content companies is something that's liable to happen more than once. Finally, everyone from Michael Eisner to MySpace is now making original, serialized, short-form, soft-porn drivel. That's the future - those adjectives right there.Perhaps then at a time when Content is King again and bad content is making a princely effort of its own, we should be thankful that JibJab will be able now to double its capacity with this newest round of investment. JibJab might even be called relatively sophisticated- relative to most similar endeavors making money in online video these days. More than a blip in the news, the funding news is a highlight in one of the most important trends online.
ChoiceAis a new site for do it yourself, or For Sale By Owner, real estate listings. It's got a nice, simple interface that makes good use of new web technologies and it's quite pleasing to peruse the limited listings collected prelaunch. Those listings are free to post and so far are primarily based around the Pacific Northwest of the US.Reators, though, may prove to be a case study of one of those industry roles that just can't be replaced by the internet.Will People Go For It?As nice as the site is, real estate may not prove to be an industry that the internet is able to totally disintermediate. I asked Joel Burslem, founder of the Future of Real Estate Marketingblog, for his perspective on ChoiceA and its goals; he was dubious about both the large-scale viability of the For Sale by Owner market in general and the ability for any website to succeed in it. "Are the services of realtors worth 6%? Are there some unscrupulous people in the business as realtors? These are important questions to ask," he said, "but this has been tried many times before. Past experience and market surveys show that the vast majority of people engaging in real estate transactions will end up using a realtor." Burslem cited a compelling list of reasons why this was the case, including the complexity of the deals and the importance of scaling and visibility. He said that real estate megasite Zillow, for example, tried to focus on for sale by owner listings at the beginning but quickly learned that it had to go after realtors if it wanted to offer a substantial number of listings at all.What does ChoiceA say about this? This angel-funded, two man startup says they believe it's only a matter of time until someone upsets or at least challenges the dominance of the MLS listings and professional realtors. They are putting their emphasis on an accessible user interface and they allow cross-posting to Craigslist. Using Amazon web services, ChoiceA is keeping costs low to hold out until the market shifts. They are planning on running some advertisements on site and may in the end take a very small fee for listings.It is Easy on the EyesThe interface really is nice, including a drag and drop favorites list, a nice lightbox gallery and various sliders and maps. It's nothing revolutionary but it's very friendly. The company also went to great lengths, they say, to put together web friendly legal forms for real estate transactions in various states. They encourage people to hire a lawyer to review the documents they use throughout the transaction - at a fraction of the cost a realtor would incur.Will people do it? They might, and ChoiceAcould be the one effort in many to succeed in this big goal of disintermediating real estate, but unlike some industries like music and movies - cutting out the middleman in this market will be no easy task.
In May 2006, eBay quietly acquired a microfinance company called MicroPlace, which it said was part ofan "ongoing initiative ... focused on maximizing our corporate resources to continue to drive social good through a variety of innovative programs." A year and a half later, MicroPlace has finally officially opened its doors to investors.MicroPlace is similar to Kiva.org(which we've written abouttwice this year), and allows investors in developed nations to support microloans for entrepreneurs in developing areas of the world. The difference between Kiva.org and MicroPlace, is that in eBay's version investors can make a return on their money.People purchase investments from third-party security issuers like Oikocredit-USA and the Calvert Foundation through MicroPlace. Those security issuers then use the funds to work with local lending organizations who grant loans to working poor in developing nations. Initial loans are typically between $30 and $200 and have 3-6 month repayment plans. Unlike Kiva.org, however, which does not charge interest to borrowers on its loans, eBay's MicroPlace is out to turn a profit while helping people establish credit and start businesses. The microfinance lenders they work with typically charge between 18% and 60% interest on loans, according to the site."Capital markets are just waking up to this asset class," Tracey Pettengill Turner, the founder and general manager of MicroPlace, told Reuters. "This is different because it is the first Web-based service for the everyday investor to invest in microfinance, and earn an investment return while addressing global poverty."It looks like investments on MicroPlace typically pay out 1.5-3.0% per year to investors. That is hardly a mammoth return on your money, but certainly any return might be enough to entice users who were hestitant to tie up their money in riskier, no return investments through sites like Kiva.org. While MicroPlace is less personal -- since you're working with third parties you never get to see directly who is benefiting from your investment (though there are a few borrower profiles available) -- the site does do a good job of getting general information out about financial and social issues in the nations it works with.Though their approach is different, and perhaps slightly less admirable, than similar web sites, MicroPlace is nonetheless trying to do some good by providing microloans to people in developing nations that need financial assistance. The prospect of making a small return on your investment may attract more users, as well. The net result of that would be more money available for people in poor nations, which is certainly a good thing.
Live from S.D.Click for "Tweets from S.D.".Powered by RSS Feed DigestThere's been lots of coverage around the web today of the role that social media is playing in reporting about the wildfires in Southern California. Twitter and Google Mapshave received the most coverage but there are probably infinite permutations of those two tools and others, as well. One tool that just happened to launch today is TwitterWhere, a service that makes tracking Tweets from any location easy to do. I couldn't help but think of San Diego when I saw it.You provide the location, by city, state or postal code, then provide a proximity radius and TwitterWhere will create an RSS feed of all the Tweets from Twitter users within that area. Here on the right is the live feed of the most recent items from within 50 miles of San Diego.TwitterWhere was built by Portland developer Matt King, co-founder of the happy-hour geo-locator Unthirsty, and first coverage of the service was on Silicon Florist- a blog that covers the tech community in the hotbed of innovation that I just happen to live in, Portland, Oregon.Our thoughts go out to the people driven from their homes by wildfires in the area, the last report we heard that they were numbered more than 1 million. Some (including myself) believe that this sort of event is likely to occur with greater frequency in the future due to ecological imbalance; one thing that's not disputable though is that social media will play an increasingly important role in media coverage of events like this.
digg_url = 'http://digg.com/music/Jango_s_Social_Music_Service_Shines_In_a_Crowded_Market';digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff';digg_skin = 'compact';Jangois a social music site that's launching formally in the middle of next month, but has decided to reach out to blogs for coverage now. Apparently a company with an enlarged sense of proportion all along, Jango says its private beta has 300,000 users. Yet it's stayed off the radar of all the leading web 2.0 review blogs to date. Read/WriteWeb readers who click through this linkcan access the closed beta.You'll be prompted to create an account after you enter your first artist search.It's a good looking service. Think Last.fmwith more social features and more AJAX. Think Pandorawith profiles brought to the front and more control over the playlist.Read on for more info about the interesting founders, the interface and the recommendation engine.Jango was founded by an international band of mysterious outlaws; they participated in the first bubble, including in European giant portal Spray and "monopoly cable TV stations" in Armenia and "their arch rival country" Azerbijan. I said they were outlaws. The six co-founders self-funded the New York based company until yesterday when they closed a $1 million angel round from undisclosed investors. There is, in fact, more AJAX than you can shake a stick at. There's not a pop-up player per se, but there is some song and channel continuity across pages. This doesn't appear to be AJAX, it's quite interesting in fact, but I like it.There's a lot that's not finished at Jango yet (after all, it's still in private beta with only 300,000 users -lol) but the single biggest thing you'll notice is the superior control over the playlist. You can skip around to related songs played past and in the future - you're not at the mercy of the tireless advance of the stream ala Pandora. It's quite nice. Unsigned music industry blog The Hippodromegot in on the beta and says that they didn't discover anything new on Jango. Jango is paying an internet radio station license to SoundExchange, ASCAP and BMI and populates its library via manual collection (they buy CDs). Commercial popularity, editorial selection and "people who like" recommendations all go together to determine Jango's recommendations.The social music market is a crowded one, but it looks like Jango has learned from its quicker competitors and has launched a very nice service.
