Archiv für den Monat Oktober 2015

Carrier Deutsche Telekom Targets Startups After Europe Agrees Net Neutrality Rules

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/30/guaranteed-good-transmission-quality-vs-paid-prioritisation/

Well that was quick. Europe’s controversial new net neutrality rules haven’t even come into force yet and German mobile carrier Deutsche Telekom is suggesting it intends to charge startups to boost the quality of their services under the new rules — as many in the tech industry had feared.

One of the problems with the incoming rules, which will come into force on April 30, 2016, is their provision to allow for preferential treatment of Internet traffic for so called “specialized services”.

The EC has been couching these as “services like IPTV, high-definition videoconferencing or healthcare services like telesurgery” — which it says use the Internet protocol and the same access network but “require a significant improvement in quality or the possibility to guarantee some technical requirements to their end-users”.

Ergo it’s been trying to claim they are not the same as ‘normal’ Internet access services, whatever those might be.

Writing an explainer on this aspect of the rules back in June, it said: “The possibility to provide innovative services with enhanced quality of service is crucial for European start-ups and will boost online innovation in Europe. However, such services must not be a sold as substitute for the open Internet access, they come on top of it.”

The actual wording of the now agreed net neutrality rules — as pertains to these specialized services — states (emphasis mine):

There is demand on the part of providers of content, applications and services to be able to provide electronic communication services other than internet access services, for which specific levels of quality, that are not assured by internet access services, are necessary. Such specific levels of quality are, for instance, required by some services responding to a public interest or by some new machine-to-machine communications services. Providers of electronic communications to the public, including providers of internet access services, and providers of content, applications and services should therefore be free to offer services which are not internet access services and which are optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, where the optimisation is necessary in order to meet the requirements of the content, applications or services for a specific level of quality.

Critics of the net neutrality rules have dubbed this provision a loophole for the creation of a two tier Internet in Europe, as well as being critical of other aspects of the rules — such as the lack of a ban on the practice of zero-rating services (whereby carriers can, for instance, offer certain apps to users without data charges for accessing them), and other exceptions for certain types of congestion management.

The EC continually rebutted such criticism, with Günther Oettinger, the Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, arguing the rules allow flexibility for “innovation and investments”, and going on to claim that specialized services “have to be in the public interest” (although the wording of the law indicates that public interest is not, in fact, a legal requirement, but merely a “for instance” example).

It looks like we’re now getting a glimpse of what the new rules will mean in practice. And specifically how these ‘specialized services’ are going to manifest themselves: as a route for carriers to open up new revenue streams by tapping into startup coffers. (Critics of the new rules have suggested ‘specialized services’ were the concession demanded by carriers for giving up roaming fees — the other key plank of the legislation. Bottom line: carriers’ revenues have been declining for years and they have to find alternatives.)

Writing in a blog post yesterday DT CEO Timotheus Höttges suggests the carrier is preparing to use the provision of specialized services to charge startups for “guaranteed good transmission quality” — arguing this will offer them a way to compete with better resourced rivals, such as large tech platforms like Google.

Höttges first likens specialized services to quality differentiation on the Internet — such as users of cloud storage services paying more for more storage or to view HD instead of SD quality videos — and then goes on to write (emphasis mine):

Opponents of special services claim that small providers can’t afford this. The opposite is true: Start-ups need special services more than anyone in order to have a chance of keeping up with large Internet providers. Google and co. can afford server parks all around the world, to bring content nearer to their customers and thus improve the quality of their services. Small companies cannot afford this. If they want to bring services to market which require guaranteed good transmission quality, it is precisely these companies that need special services. By our reckoning, they would pay a couple of percent for this in the form of revenue-sharing. This would be a fair contribution for the use of the infrastructure. And it ensures more competition on the Internet.

Carriers have long complained they are being turned into dumb pipes by the apps sitting atop their network and running data services that allow users to circumvent the likes of SMS via messaging apps, for instance. So you can just imagine how they are salivating over the prospect of leverage over startups via the ability to pit one Internet business against the other by selling “guaranteed good transmission quality”.

The phrase “guaranteed good transmission quality” implies those businesses not paying a couple of per cent revenue-share to the carrier can expect less reliable transmission quality over DT’s network — albeit the EC continually stated that “paid prioritisation” is explicitly not allowed under the new net neutrality rules.

So it will presumably be up to national regulatory authorities to determine whether “guaranteed good transmission quality” amounts to “paid prioritisation” or not.

Well you can’t say people didn’t see this coming…

Advertisements

Successful at the Age of 25

 

Um erfolgreich zu werden, gibt es kein Patentrezept. Das mussten auch die lernen, die es tatsächlich zu Erfolg, Ruhm, Ehre und internationaler Berühmtheit gebracht haben. Denn die Wege, die sie dorthin geführt haben, könnten unterschiedlicher nicht sein.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump arbeitete als Projektentwickler im Immobilienkonzern seines Vaters und übernahm mit 25 Jahren die Leitung des Unternehmens, das er als eine seiner ersten Handlungen von „Elizabeth Trump & Son“ in „The Trump Organization“ umtaufte.

Zugegeben, Donald Trump hatte es auch recht leicht im Leben. Der milliardenschwere Immobilien-Mogul, der aktuell vor allem durch das Rennen um die US-Präsidentschaftskandidatur Schlagzeilen macht, wuchs in einer reichen Familie auf. Sein Vater versuchte aber trotzdem, ihm den verantwortungsbewussten Umgang mit Geld beizubringen. Der junge Donald musste zum Beispiel leere Flaschen auf den Baustellen des Familienkonzerns einsammeln, um sein Taschengeld aufzubessern.

Elon Musk

Elon Musk führte mit 25 Jahren seine erste Internetfirma.

Im Alter von 24 Jahren schmiss Musk seine Promotion in angewandter Physik an der Stanford Universität hin und gründete Zip2. Mit seiner Firma, die online Geschäftsverzeichnisse und einen Kartendienst bereitstellte, wollte Musk von der boomenden Internetbranche in den späten 90er Jahren profitieren – und hatte Erfolg. Rund vier Jahre später wurde Zip2 von Compaq aufgekauft. Das Geld aus dem Verkauf, immerhin 307 Millionen Dollar, nutzte Musk um seine nächste Firma zu gründen: PayPal.

Eric Schmidt

Heute ist Eric Schmidt Vorstandsvorsitzender von Alphabet (ehemals Google). Als er 25 Jahre alt war, baute er sich gerade sein umfangreiches IT-Wissen auf, dass ihn letztendlich in diese Position brachte.

Nach seinem Masterabschluss blieb Schmidt an der Berkeley Universität um zu promovieren. Für seine Doktorarbeit, die er im Alter von 27 Jahren abschloss, befasste er sich mit der Vernetzung von Computern und komplexen Aspekten der Software-Entwicklung. Während des Sommers arbeitete er außerdem in der Forschungsabteilung des Xerox Palo Alto Research Centers. Dort wurde unter anderem der computergestützte Arbeitsplatz entwickelt, den wir heute kennen und nutzen.

Jeff Bezos

Jeff Bezos hatte mit 25 Jahren einen Job in der Bankenbranche.

Mit 24 Jahren heuerte der heutige Amazon-Chef bei Bankers Trust an, einer Bank mit Schwerpunkt auf Vermögensverwaltung und Investmentbanking. Dort entwickelte er eine für damalige Verhältnisse revolutionäre Software für die Bankenbranche. In der Folge wurde er nur zwei Jahre später, also mit 26, zum Vize-Präsidenten von Bankers Trust befördert.

Larry Ellison

Der Oracle-Gründer hielt sich mit Gelegenheitsjobs als Programmierer über Wasser.

Das Programmieren hat sich Ellison in seiner Jugend selbst beigebracht. Mit 22 Jahren zog er dann nach Berkeley, um damit auch Geld zu verdienen. Während der folgenden acht Jahre tingelte er von einem Job zum nächsten und arbeitet unter anderem für die US-Bank Wells Fargo oder den Multimedia-Konzern Ampex. Bei letzterem lernte Ellison auch Bob Miner und Ed Oats kennen, die späteren Mitgründer von Oracle.

Marissa Mayer

Marissa Mayer war Angestellte bei Google.

Genauer gesagt wurde sie im Alter von 24 Jahren als 20. Google-Mitarbeiter eingestellt. Sie war zu dieser Zeit auch die einzige Frau beim späteren Suchmaschinen-Giganten. Mayer blieb Google 13 Jahre lang treu, bevor sie ihren heutigen Posten als Chefin von Yahoo antrat.

Mark Cuban

Der Self-Made-Milliardär war mit 25 noch Barkeeper in Dallas.

Nachdem er seinen Abschluss an der Universität von Indiana in der Tasche hatte, zog Mark Cuban nach Dallas und arbeitete dort zunächst als Barkeeper. Anschließend verkaufte er Computerprogramme für die Firma Your Business Software, die ihn aber nach nicht einmal einem Jahr feuerte. Daraufhin gründete Cuban seine eigene Firma MicroSolutions, die er im Alter von 30 Jahren für 6 Millionen Dollar an CompuServe verkaufte.

Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg führte mit 25 Jahren ein Unternehmen, das endlich Geld einbrachte.

Der Facebook-Gründer hat früh angefangen: Bereits fünf Jahre harte Arbeit hatte er vor seinem 25. Geburtstag in Facebook gesteckt. Dafür bekam er mit 25 Jahren aber ein besonderes Geschenk: Im gleichen Jahr, nämlich 2009, schrieb Facebook erstmals schwarze Zahlen und überstieg die Marke von 300 Millionen Nutzern.

Richard Branson

Mit 25 Jahren stand der Virgin-Gründer bereits an der Spitze eines breit gefächerten Unternehmens.

Schon im Alter von 20 Jahren eröffnete Richard Branson seinen eigenen Plattenladen unter dem Namen „Virgin“. Zwei Jahre später folgte ein Tonstudio und mit 23 Jahren nannte Branson auch ein Plattenlabel sein eigen. In den Jahren zwischen seinem 25. und seinem 30. Geburtstag baute der Virgin-Chef sein Unternehmen weiter aus und machte es zu einem international agierenden Großkonzern.

Sheryl Sandberg

Im Alter von 25 Jahren machte Sheryl Sandberg ihren Master-Abschluss an der Harvard Business School.

Eigentlich hatte die Geschäftsführerin von Facebook ihr Studium in Harvard bereits im Alter von 22 Jahren mit dem Bachelor abgeschlossen und einen Job bei der Weltbank ergattert, wo sie mit dem späteren US-Finanzminister Larry Summers zusammenarbeitete. Sie beschloss dann jedoch, an der Harvard Business School doch noch ihren Master zu machen. Diesen hatte sie 1995 schließlich auch in der Tasche. Bis sie zu Facebook kam, sollte es anschließend aber noch einige Jahre dauern.

Steve Jobs

Apple-Gründer Steve Jobs brachte seine Firma mit 25 Jahren an die Börse und wurde so zum Millionär.

Nach dem ersten Handelstag der Apple-Aktie im Dezember 1980 war Steve Jobs Konzern am Markt bereits stolze 1,2 Milliarden Dollar wert. Das machte auch ihn schlagartig reich. Seinem Biografen erzählte Jobs später, dass er an diesem Tag einen Schwur geleistet hätte: Er würde es nicht zulassen, dass Geld irgendwann einmal sein Leben zerstöre.

Warren Buffett

Das Orakel von Omaha lebte mit 25 Jahren in Omaha (wer hätte es gedacht?) und arbeitet dort als Investmentbanker.

Bereits in seinen frühen 20ern fing Warren Buffett bei Buffet-Falk & Company an, dem Unternehmen seines Vaters, und tätigte dort Investitionen für seine Kunden. Mit 26 Jahren zog es ihn aber schließlich von Omaha nach New York, wo er als Wertpapieranalyst für seinen Mentor Benjamin Graham arbeitete. Im gleichen Jahr rief er mit Buffett Partnership Ltd. auch seine eigene Investmentfirma ins Leben und legte den Grundstein für seinen heute legendären Ruf.

 

Quelle: http://www.finanzen.net/nachricht/private-finanzen/Business-Insider-Was-Warren-Buffett-Jeff-Bezos-und-10-weitere-erfolgreiche-Menschen-im-Alter-von-25-Jahren-gemacht-haben-4584303

Source: http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-12-highly-successful-people-were-doing-at-25-2015-10?r=US&IR=T

Apple’s Growth Machine Starts to Sputter

Source: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-27/apple-s-iphone-growth-machine-starts-to-sputter

Apple has been corporate America’s most ridiculously unbelievable growth story. And now it’s over. Take a deep breath. Exhale. Get used to it.

Yes, the Apple we have come to know was a gravity-defying growth machine. Apple is the most valuable company in the world, yet it increased its revenue in the last 12 months by more than last year’s sales at Coca-Cola. Apple rang up enough operating cash in the last year to buy 625,000 Tesla Model X cars — nearly one for each person in San Francisco. (I’ll take blue with tan leather interior, please.) The company has given us so many eye-popping numbers that any feat short of Tim Cook colonizing Mars is underwhelming.

With the setup of high expectations, the most crucial numbers are now more low-Earth orbit than deep space. Unit sales of the iPhone for the three months ended Sept. 26 climbed 22 percent from those in the period a year earlier. Just a few months ago, Apple sold 60 percent more iPhones than it did a year before. Wall Street will be thrilled if iPhone sales increase at all in the holiday quarter, compared with the frenzied sales of the iPhone 6 during the 2014 holidays. Apple’s own forecast, which is often conservative, is for a tiny increase in revenue in the three months ending in December.

The existential question for Apple is whether the company is in another lull before a turbocharge from the iPhone 7 or something else, or whether nonspectacular growth is the new normal.

It’s true that this isn’t the first time Apple seemed to run out of steam. Just before the introduction of the iPhone 6 models a year ago, Apple posted five consecutive quarters of single-digit revenue growth, according to Bloomberg data. Sales took off again once people snapped up the larger-screen iPhones.

What’s different this time is Apple is in part to blame for doubts about its growth trajectory. The company has fallen into an unhealthy reliance on a single product: the iPhone. The smartphones generated just more than half of Apple’s sales before the introduction of the iPhone 6. That number has risen to 63 percent or more in each of the last four quarters.

90823-20151027204645000000000

 

Part of that shift, of course, is the remarkable sales run for the iPhone. It’s also because the Apple Watch, Apple Music or potential future electric minivans aren’t big enough to pick up the slack right now, and maybe never will. Sales of Mac computers are defying the shrinking PC market, but revenue gains are pedestrian. The iPad seems to have settled into a rut as a nice-but-not-essential consumer gadget that users don’t upgrade as often as the company would like. Revenue from iPads fell for the seventh quarter in a row, by 20 percent in the latest three months.

Apple is used to defying predictions that it can’t top itself. Those predictions look more likely to come true than ever before.

Apple’s Chinese Miracle Is Over

Source: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-28/apple-s-chinese-miracle-is-over

Perhaps the most important number in Apple’s quarterly release on Tuesday came from China, and it’s not the good news Apple makes out. The company’s over reliance on the Chinese market is starting to hinder its progress despite management’s attempts to give it a positive spin.

During Tuesday’s earnings call, Apple chief executive Tim Cook sang the praises of the Chinese market, saying it will one day be Apple’s largest. In fiscal 2015, which ended for Apple on Sept. 26, Greater China provided 25 percent of the company’s revenue, for the first time overtaking Europe, responsible for just 21.6 percent of Apple sales. An economic slowdown? Not according to Cook, who is worth quoting at length here:

Frankly, if I were to shut off my web and shut off the TV and just look at how many customers are coming in our stores regardless of whether they’re buying, how many people are coming online, and in addition looking at our sales trends, I wouldn’t know there was any economic issue at all in China. And so I don’t know how unusual we are with that. I think that there’s a misunderstanding, probably particularly in the Western world, about China’s economy, which contributes to the confusion. That said, I don’t think it’s growing as fast as it was; but I also don’t think that Apple’s results are largely dependent on minor changes in growth.

The statistics Cook cites in support of this view are impressive: 87 percent growth in iPhone sales year-on-year in Greater China (which includes Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau) despite the entire market’s 4 percent growth; revenue almost twice as high in the last quarter as a year ago; and the iPhone 6 now the bestselling smartphone in China, with the iPhone 6 Plus at number three. These numbers are less relevant, however, than two others: a drop in quarter-on-quarter sales in Greater China and an erosion of Apple’s overall market share there.

In the last quarter of fiscal 2015, Apple made $12.5 billion in revenue in Greater China, a 5.4 percent drop compared to the previous three months, despite the inclusion of the first weekend of iPhone 6s sales in the fourth quarter, 2015 data. In 2014, the new iPhone 6 wasn’t immediately available in China, so the fourth quarter didn’t benefit from the new product boost — and still sales were higher than in the previous three months.

Apple in China

Cook is wrong to say the Chinese slowdown isn’t affecting his company’s sales. The effect has been immediate and quite obvious. But Apple’s market share in the Asia Pacific region, which includes China, wasn’t growing even before it manifested itself.

According to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence, in the second quarter of this year, Apple’s market share of smartphone unit shipments in the region dropped to 7.7 percent from 10.8 percent in the previous quarter as Chinese leaders Huawei and Xiaomi increased their shares. Apple is the Asian smartphone market leader in terms of value, but its share by that measure also dropped in the second quarter — to 34.1 percent from 42.7 percent in the previous three months. Again, Huawei and Xiaomi posted gains, although Korean producers such as Samsung and LG also managed to pick up some of Apple’s losses. As Apple’s revenue in the region dropped, it was unlikely to have made share gains in the last quarter.

Cook is banking on the future growth of the Chinese middle class, and that’s an obvious long-term bet to make, but under the current economic conditions, this growth is not likely to be explosive. Besides, Apple won’t even be able to grow its sales at the same rate because many Chinese consumers will opt for better-value devices from local producers, as they’re already doing, judging by the market share data.

Improving distribution in China yielded strong revenue gains for Apple this year. Greater China accounted for 53 percent of the company’s revenue growth in fiscal 2015. Unless China’s economic troubles are miraculously cured over the next year or Huawei and Xiaomi stop making cutting-edge devices for a fraction of Apple’s prices, this growth engine has stalled. Nor does Apple have any comparable opportunities for extensive growth anywhere else in the world.

Cook’s bet on China was, of course, no mistake: It would be a crime for a device producer not to develop a strong presence in the world’s most populous country. Focusing on China was a business decision that produced gains comparable to a ground-breaking product launch, especially in 2015. There are no more miracles coming out of China, however, and no more technological rabbits coming out of Apple’s hat. It’s time for some stagnation and retrenchment — at least by this company’s remarkably high standards.

Source: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-28/apple-s-chinese-miracle-is-over

Facebook introduces Message Requests (and fundamentally changes is paradigm from Trading Privacy By Obscurity For Openness With Control)

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/27/facebook-message-requests/

Facebook Messenger Wants To BE Your Phone Number With New Message Requests

Phone numbers are dumb. Once someone has yours, you can’t stop them from contacting you.

Someone might want you to call them, but if you don’t have their random string of digits, you can’t. And you could miss something extremely important if a person you’ve never met really needs to reach you.

Facebook Messenger has a plan to fix all that. And it’s born from the ashes of one of the social network’s worst products ever.

No More Missed Connections

Today, Messenger is killing off the dysfunctional “Other Inbox”. It was where Facebook messages went to die if they were sent by someone who wasn’t your friend or friend-of-a-friend. Few people knew it existed. Fewer ever checked it. And it wasn’t even accessible from Messenger’s iOS or Android apps.

A friend of mine once received a Facebook message from his long-lost brother he was separated from at birth 30 years ago in Vietnam. But he didn’t see the message for six months because it went to his Other Inbox. It took a LinkedIn request before he realized what he was missing.

Facebook Other Inbox

Thankfully, that shouldn’t happen anymore. Rolling out globally starting today is Facebook’s replacement for the Other Inbox which it calls “Message Requests”. It means all someone needs in order to contact you is your name, but you have control over whether they can contact you again.

Friend Requests For Chat

Now, any message from a non-friend who doesn’t have your phone number will go into your Message Requests at the top of Messenger on mobile or in the Messages tab on web.

Facebook Message Requests

From there, you can parse who to respond to and who to permanently ignore. You’ll see the sender’s name, a little public info about them like their city, job, or mutual friends, and the message.

But the sender won’t know you looked. Respond and the thread goes to your normal inbox, ignore and it’s hidden in the Filtered Requests folder along with anything that seems like spam.

If you already have a thread open with someone or you have their phone number, your messages will be allowed into their normal inbox. One change to look out for is that messages from friends-of-friends will now be treated as requests. Facebook will no longer bet that having a friend in common means you care to talk to someone.

Essentially, Message Requests are like Friend Requests for chat. Except they create a new kind of relationship on Facebook — non-friends who can message you. And with that distinction, Messenger has unlocked the potential to connect with people you just met, someone you don’t know but need to talk to, and even businesses.

messenger-developer

This Isn’t Email

Tony Leach doesn’t know his parents’ phone number. Messenger’s Product Manager on Message Requests isn’t a terrible son. His family just moves a lot, and they insist on changing their number to the local area code each time. “Phone numbers are kind of a relic of the ’50s” he tells me. “I know [my parents] much better as people. Names are a much better way of contacting people.”

So back in 2010, Facebook tried, and failed, to turn your name into not your phone number, but your email address. The company gave everyone a [username]@facebook.com email address that connected to Messenger, and had the lofty idea that people would route their email newsletters, bills, and more there.

Facebook's Tony Leach

They didn’t. But the Other Inbox where the mediocre stuff you didn’t respond to was supposed to go became a dungeon where critical messages from non-friends languished unread.

It took awhile, including an intrusive partnership with Apple on contact syncing, before Facebook Message Requests’ engineering lead Michael Adkins says “We knew the other folder didn’t work for a mobile to mobile system.” If it was going to evolve beyond the desktop users were ditching, Facebook had to axe the Other Inbox.

“We’ve heard so many stories like estranged parents trying to get back in touch, or you lost your wallet and someone trying to get in touch with you” Leach explains. “That’s why we want to replace that with a system that makes it a lot easier to catch the messages that you want to see.”

It will be good for Facebook’s business too. Mobile is where people spend their time. The more useful Messenger is, the deeper users get locked in to Facebook’s ecosystem where they’ll see News Feed ads and generate data that earns Facebook money.

Trading Privacy By Obscurity For Openness With Control

Now Facebook is making that move, shuttling all Other Inbox messages into the Message Request feature’s hidden Filtered Requests folder. Going forward, it hopes to help you intelligently parse non-friend messages in a way SMS never could.

As long as your message matters, you can now contact any of the 1.5 billion people on Facebook. This achieves what Leach calls “A level of openness where you can get in touch with anyone in the world but still have the control yourself of who contacts you and who can’t.”

That last part is critical. Make no mistake, this is a change in how the concept of privacy works for a massive swath of humanity. Facebook is trading our “privacy by obscurity” for “openness with control”. Facebook’s head of Messenger David Marcus himself notes that “While this may seem like a small change, it’s actually a foundational development.”

Web-2

Previously, regarding the ability to contact someone, we had privacy by obscurity: someone couldn’t call or text you if they didn’t have your number. But once they did, you had almost no control. Even if you blocked their number, they could always change theirs or use someone else’s phone. “Once you give out your email address you have no idea what they’re going to do with it” Adkins warns. “They could sell it to someone one else. Same thing with phone numbers.”

The result was an initial level of security that if surmounted, opened up opportunities for harassment.

facebook-privacy-1

Now with Facebook, we’ll have openness with control: someone only needs your name to contact you, but you can block them much more effectively. Delete or ignore a Message Request, and you won’t be notified about someone’s messages any more.

And thanks to Facebook’s spam detection systems that flag recently created accounts with few friends, Messenger can keep blocking them automatically even if they create a new account to try to harass you. Messenger also factors in the sender’s previous messaging behavior and whether you typically approve Message Requests to determine what you see.

Now, if someone doesn’t seem like a spammer, Messenger could put that message from a stranger about returning your wallet or meeting at that party where you’ll actually see it. The change might be a little scary at first, and lead to a few more accidental pings about messages you definitely don’t care about. But long-term, openness with control is a more scalable way to handle communication in a globalized society.

Hey, I Just Met You

This shift in how privacy works could fundamentally change how we interact interpersonally.

Typically, meeting someone new means exchanging names and having a conversation. At the end, if one person has the guts to ask to extend the meeting into a friendship or something more, they have to explicitly ask for that person’s phone number.

But often times, that’s either daunting or inconvenient. While it might seem respectful to have to ask in person for permission to contact someone in the future, many will feel too awkward to turn someone down. The result is relationships both people don’t really want, or an uncomfortable situation with fake numbers or dashed hopes.

preview-1

Message Requests could also make Facebook a way to communicate with contractors, short-term business colleagues, or anyone else you want to chat with temporarily, but don’t want to friend or give your number.

unnamedBut the even bigger opportunity for Facebook is using Message Requests as the foundation for a WeChat-style way to chat directly with businesses. The News Feed works for non-essential content shared by businesses, but if they need to reach you to work out details or modify your order, messaging works much better.

Facebook is already experimenting with ways to let you receive customer service, attain a quote on home repair, or contact Page admins via Messenger. And there’s already a payment system built into Messenger. Imagine one day getting a Message Request from a business you’ve interacted with, then being able to receive important updates or even buy things from them right from chat.

But for now, maybe Message Request will empower the more shy ones among us. The barrier to a deeper connection has been dismantled. All you need is a name.

Leach concludes, “I can’t help but think of how many dates I missed out on because I was too scared to ask someone’s phone number in the moment.”

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/27/facebook-message-requests/

T-Mobile Austria arbeitet bereits an neuem Roaming-Modell

Quote: http://www.golem.de/news/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-arbeitet-bereits-an-neuem-roaming-modell-1510-117151.html

T-Mobile Austria gibt nach dem Beschlusses des Europaparlaments gegen Roaming-Gebühren nicht auf und sucht nach einem neuen Modell. Der Konsument soll „seinen Inlandspreis mit Aufschlag innerhalb der EU zahlen“, so der Chef von T-Mobile Austria Andreas Bierwirth.

Andreas Bierwirth, Chef von T-Mobile Austria

Der österreichische Mobilfunkbetreiber T-Mobile sucht nach dem heutigen Beschluss des Europaparlaments in Straßburg nach einem neuen Roaming-Modell. Andreas Bierwirth, Chef von T-Mobile Austria, erklärte in einem Statement, das Golem.de vorliegt: „Es heißt nun, ein gänzlich neues Roaming-Modell zu entwickeln, statt einfach die Preise zu senken. Der Konsument soll seinen Inlandspreis mit Aufschlag innerhalb der EU zahlen.“

T-Mobile Austria habe gewusst, dass es ein Ablaufdatum für Roaming innerhalb der EU gibt und werde den rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen folgen. Bierwirth: „Es darf nicht vergessen werden, dass es unterschiedlich hohe Kosten in verschiedenen Ländern gibt. So ist beispielsweise Österreich als Bergland mit kleiner Bevölkerung ungleich teurer zu versorgen als Belgien mit flachem Land und dichter Besiedelung. Auch wenn die EU-Politiker mit der Abschaffung von Roaming allen Urlaubern scheinbar ein Zuckerl schenken: Insgesamt werden der Telekomindustrie viele Millionen an wichtigem Investitionsvolumen entzogen.“

Ein großer Netzausrüster bietet nach Informationen von Golem.de den Betreibern eine Software an, die berechnet, wie sie ihr Netz durch Extraeinnahmen über das Roaming finanzieren könnten.

Die Roaming-Gebühren fallen am 15. Juni 2017 weg. Welche Volumina an SMS, Telefonminuten und Daten frei bleiben müssen von den Roaming-Aufschlägen, wird die EU-Kommission noch ausarbeiten. „Europäer werden den gleichen Preis zahlen wie zu Hause, wenn sie ihre Mobilgeräte auf Reisen in der EU nutzen“, erklärte der für Digitales zuständige EU-Vizekommissionschef Andrus Ansip. Wer dauerhaft eine günstigere SIM-Karte aus dem Ausland daheim nutzt, kann auch weiterhin Extrakosten berechnet bekommen.

„Erst wenn diese Vorgaben vorliegen, kann mit der vollständigen technischen Implementierung begonnen werden“, sagte Bierwirth.

Mobile Carriers Are Working With Partners to Manage, Package and Sell Data

Source: http://adage.com/article/datadriven-marketing/24-billion-data-business-telcos-discuss/301058/

 

U.K. grocer Morrisons, ad-buying behemoth GroupM and other marketers and agencies are testing never-before-available data from cellphone carriers that connects device location and other information with telcos‘ real-world files on subscribers. Some services offer real-time heat maps showing the neighborhoods where store visitors go home at night, lists the sites they visited on mobile browsers recently and more.

Under the radar, Verizon, Sprint, Telefonica and other carriers have partnered with firms including SAP, IBM, HP and AirSage to manage, package and sell various levels of data to marketers and other clients. It’s all part of a push by the world’s largest phone operators to counteract diminishing subscriber growth through new business ventures that tap into the data that showers from consumers‘ mobile web surfing, text messaging and phone calls.

Morrison's
Morrison’s Credit: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

SAP’s Consumer Insight 365 ingests regularly updated data representing as many as 300 cellphone events per day for each of the 20 million to 25 million mobile subscribers. SAP won’t disclose the carriers providing this data. It „tells you where your consumers are coming from, because obviously the mobile operator knows their home location,“ said Lori Mitchell-Keller, head of SAP’s global retail industry business unit.

There is a lot of marketer interest in that information because it is tied to actual individuals. For the same reason, however, there is potential for resistance from privacy advocates.

WPP units such as Kantar Media and GroupM’s Mindshare have „kicked the tires“ for three years on Consumer Insight 365, testing and helping develop applications for the service, said Nick Nyhan, CEO of WPP’s Data Alliance. The extensive time spent so far partly reflects „high sensitivity to not doing something that would be too close for comfort from a consumer point of view,“ Mr. Nyhan said.

The service also combines data from telcos with other information, telling businesses whether shoppers are checking out competitor prices on their phones or just emailing friends. It can tell them the age ranges and genders of people who visited a store location between 10 a.m. and noon, and link location and demographic data with shoppers‘ web browsing history. Retailers might use the information to arrange store displays to appeal to certain customer segments at different times of the day, or to help determine where to open new locations.

„It used to be that this data was a lot harder to come by,“ said Ross Shanken, CEO of LeadID, a lead generation analytics firm. In a previous position at data firm TargusInfo 2008 and 2010 he nonetheless partnered with „a very large telco“ to validate names, addresses and phone numbers for data appending.

Too risky for the E.U.?
To protect privacy, SAP receives non-personally-identifiable, anonymized information from telcos, and only provides aggregated information to its clients to prevent reidentification of individuals. Still, sharing and using data this way is controversial. Nearly all the players exploring the burgeoning Telecom Data as a Service field, or TDaaS for short, are reluctant to provide the details of their operations, much less freely name their clients. And despite privacy safeguards, SAP is focused on selling its 365 product in North America and the Asia-Pacific region because it cannot get the data it needs from telcos representing consumers in the E.U., where data protections are stricter than in the U.S. and elsewhere.

But the rewards may outweigh the possible tangles with government regulators, consumer advocates and even squeamish board members.

The global market for telco data as a service is potentially worth $24.1 billion this year, on its way to $79 billion in 2020, according to estimates by 451 Research based on a survey of likely customers. „Challenges and constraints“ mean operators are scraping just 10% of the possible market right now, though that will rise to 30% by 2020, 451 Research said.

„If I was a CEO of any telecom operator in the U.S., I would be saying to myself I can do the same,“ said Michael Provenzano, CEO and co-founder of Vistar Media, which teams up with mobile operators to provide anonymized and aggregated data for targeting digital out-of-home ads based on consumers‘ comings and goings. „That’s going to be something these guys are talking about in the boardroom.“

Perhaps the most prominent recent moves in the burgeoning TDaaS realm are Verizon’s $4.4 billion acquisition of AOL in May, followed by its purchase of mobile ad network Millennial Media for $238 million in September. Many saw the AOL buy as a means for Verizon to turn its data into a viable business, in part because AOL provides ad-tech infrastructure and marketer relationships that Verizon lacks.

The level of authenticated information derived from Verizon and other mobile operators is seen as potentially more valuable than some other consumer data because it directly connects mobile phone interactions to individuals through actual billing information. „We’re talking about linking a household and a billing relationship with a human being,“ said Seth Demsey, CTO of AOL Platforms.

Verizon’s Precision Market Insights division previously stumbled in its attempts to aggregate and package mobile data to help marketers target consumers and measure campaigns. Sprint’s similar Pinsight Media division and AT&T’s AdWorks—which segments and targets TV audiences—have not fared much better, according to observers.

But lackluster results from going it alone have driven telcos toward companies that can facilitate cashing in on data. Along with SAP on the marketer-facing side, others including HP and IBM have stepped in to help phone carriers on the back-end data management and analysis side.

When Spanish operator Telefonica embarked on its Dynamic Insights offering, it partnered with consumer insights firm GfK to help package the telco’s mobile data for clients including U.K. food purveyor Morrisons. The grocery chain used the service to garner anonymized data connecting consumer demographic data to location visits.

SAP's Rohit Tripathi
SAP’s Rohit Tripathi Credit: Courtesy SAP

Some of these data relationships have long histories. SAP America owns Sybase, a subsidiary it bought in 2010 that serves as a technology hub for multiple mobile carriers and counts Verizon as a partner. The Sybase business has provided „deep relationships with mobile operators around the globe,“ said Rohit Tripathi, global VP and general manager of SAP Mobile Services, in an email.

AirSage, another firm that has tight integrations with mobile operators, supplies data to municipal planners, retail store developers and city tourism boards. The company integrated its technology with telecom companies in the 1990s to enable 911 call support services. More recently it has signed data deals with Verizon Wireless and Sprint. „Our solution is actually plugged into the network behind the firewall of the carrier,“ said Ryan Kinskey, director of business development and sales at AirSage. Device IDs tracked by AirSage are anonymized, he added.

Verizon and Sprint declined to comment for this story. AT&T and T-Mobile said they don’t share consumer or location data with SAP, Sybase, AirSage or Vistar.

Why the secrecy?
Insiders say phone carriers exploring data-sharing businesses are tight-lipped because they don’t want to reveal too many details to competitors, but fear of consumer complaints is always lurking in the background.

EFF's Peter Eckersley
EFF’s Peter Eckersley Credit: Courtesy EFF

„The practices that carriers have gotten into, the sheer volume of data and the promiscuity with which they’re revealing their customers‘ data creates enormous risk for their businesses,“ said Peter Eckersley, chief computer scientist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy watchdog. Mr. Eckersley and others suggest that anonymization techniques are faulty in many cases because even information associated with a hashed or encrypted identification code can be linked back to a home address and potentially reidentified by hackers.

Unlike other types of location tracking, such as beacon technologies that work only with mobile apps that people have agreed to let track them, many services employing telco data require no explicit opt-ins by consumers. Companies like SAP instead rely on carriers‘ terms and conditions with their subscribers, calling acceptance of the terms equivalent to opting in. Verizon’s privacy policy, for example, says that information collected on its customers may „be aggregated or anonymized for business and marketing uses by us or by third parties.“

Ultimately, for mobile operators, these relationships could reap substantial income from the data generated by subscribers who already account for their primary revenue streams. The telcos do not break out revenue derived from their data-related sales in their quarterly earnings reports, so just how much money they’re making from these deals is not known.

SAP will „effectively share the revenue back with the operator, so they get to make money from data that they’re basically not utilizing or under-utilizing today,“ former SAP Mobile President John Sims said at an industry conference in Las Vegas in 2013 as the company introduced Consumer Insight 365.

„The mobile operators don’t want to reveal this,“ said Mr. Tripathi, the SAP Mobile Services executive. No matter how much telcos and their partners stress that the data is anonymized and aggregated, he said, „they are fearful people will take this and twist it into something that it isn’t.“