Ofcom outlines plans for 2019/20

With the country on the verge of realising the promise of the digital economy, the pressure is still on Ofcom to make sure a fair and sustainable landscape is developing. Here, the team outlines its plans for the next twelve months.

“It’s a great way of being able to explain why our work matters and what some of the areas are we want to give a particular focus to,” said Ofcom CEO Sharon White. “And it’s also a way of being able to be held accountable for those areas.

“This year we’re talking about two big consumer themes. Fairness for customers, how do we make sure whether your getting broadband or mobile, you’re getting a great deal, a fair deal from your provider, and the other big these is better broadband, better mobile wherever you live.”

The plan itself actually focuses on four areas. Firstly, better connectivity. Secondly, fairness for customers Thirdly, supporting UK broadcasting. And finally, raising awareness of online harms.

Starting with better connectivity, over the next 12 months the Government’s planned universal broadband service will be getting more attention, while the team will continue to focus on opening up access to BT’s network of underground ducts and telegraph poles. Addressing the mobile not-spots, more airwaves will hit the auction lots and it would be a fair assumption more coverage obligations will be heading towards the telcos.

On the fairness side, work will continue to ensure operators are being more transparent when informing customers about the best available deals and tariffs. One area which has been prioritised is for those customers who pay for their handsets bundled with airtime, or those who pay more because of their contract status.

Looking at UK broadcasting, the message here seems to be value for money and ensuring public service broadcasting is still fit for purpose. A lot has changed over the last five years, look at the growth of OTT streaming services and downfall of linear TV, and there is a feeling something needs to change to ensure public funds are being spent in the best interest of those who pay the taxes in the first place.

Finally, in terms of the final part of the programme, this will be a tricky one. There is of course a need for consumers to be more aware of the dangers of the digital economy, but this is an area which has been largely ignored to date. No-one is particularly to blame here, as without the consequences it becomes very difficult to educate on dangers and be taken seriously. That said, there have been plenty of scandals and data breaches in recent memory to give Ofcom ammunition.

With the 5G dawn breaking and the increased drive for fibre finally hitting home in the UK, there is plenty to be excited about but much work which needs to be done. An excellent example of this is the Which report panning ISPs for failing to deliver on consumer expectations. Telcos are traditionally slow-moving beasts, though technology developments are increasingly speeding up, dominating more of our lives, change might have to be forced through.

Ofcom not only needs to ensure there is an effective landscape for the telcos to thrive, it needs to ensure these benefits are being passed across to the consumer and the economy. The next twelve months promise a very business time for Ofcom employees.

Three Denmark pushes carrier billing as value add

Cutting through the competitive chaos can be a difficult task, and while Three UK is focusing on convergence and broadband, Three Denmark is making a play to manage the consumers wallet.

With mobile services becoming increasingly utilitised the telcos need to search for a new way to stay relevant and add value to the consumer. Some are diversifying into alternative connectivity services or content, but other are broadening their wings outside the traditional realms of telecommunications.

“It can be difficult to keep track of how many different small amounts you are allowed to spend on apps, movies and games – or how much you get used during a month,” said David Elsass of Three Denmark. “Therefore, many of our customers, both with and without children, have sought greater overview.”

Many telcos have created a very unique position of trust with the consumer. Some might begrudgingly plug credit card details into the Google or Amazon matrix, but almost every consumer trusts their telco to manage their financial details effectively. With more services becoming online-first, or at-least digitally-orientated, a telco can bridge the gap in trust, allowing sceptical consumers to interact with the digital economy.

This is the niche which Three Denmark is looking to fill. Through 3Payment, customers will be able to pool all Apple, Google and Microsoft purchases into their phone bill, streamlining the increasingly fragmented digital economy.

According to a report from DIBS Payment Services, the Danes spent over 20 Danish Krone (roughly £2.3 billion) on online services and subscriptions. As many of these providers are making it so easy to purchase services, keeping track of total spend can be a complicated process. The 3Payment will not only streamline these payments into a single point, but also give the user the option to limit spending.

Three is not necessarily following the status quo in creating additional value to customers, but this is a very interesting approach. Unless the telcos offer something different to consumers, there is a very real risk of walking the path to utilitisation.

One of the main reasons we like this initiative is Three is attempting to add value to the ecosystem in an emerging segment, leaning on one of its attributes. This isn’t an example of a telco attempting to muscle into a competitive segment which is dominated by traditional players which have very different business models, like content, which we see as risky.

Three is leveraging a strength which it has, the trust relationship between it and the consumer, and tackling a pain-point in the digital economy. Simple, forward-looking and innovative.

Silicon Valley doesn’t know where to look in the 2020 Presidential race

Traditionally Silicon Valley has supported Democrat Presidential candidates but, with the resident internet giants increasingly becoming a political punching bag, this might change very quickly.

More specifically, Silicon Valley tends to lean towards ‘progressive’ Democrats. Many of those who would want to be included in this list have been running events in California recently to woo voters and potential donors alike, but these are candidates which have not been friendly to the internet giants in recent months.

Some of those who would call themselves ‘progressive’ Democrats include California Senator Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, all of which have made moves against the technology giants for varying reasons. Harris and Booker have sponsored or supported bills which would place greater scrutiny on acquisitions, while Warren made the outlandish promise to break-up big tech and reverse certain acquisitions.

While Warren’s promise might end up meaning very little, we suspect there is too much of a focus on popularity instead of practicality, she has been the focal point of some criticism. Texas Representative Beto O’Rourke, another confirmed candidate, poked fun at Warren’s approach instead suggesting the digital economy should be more tightly regulated, avoiding the difficulties of breaking up incredibly complex, private organizations.

The prospect of new regulations is certainly a better option for the internet giants than Warren’s alternative, however O’Rourke is a bit of a difficult horse to back right now. Looking at O’Rourke’s website, it offers little (in fact, zero) insight into potential policies, but if you want to buy a t-shirt this is the place to go.

Of course, regulatory reform is top of the agenda for many of the potential candidates, and the technology industry is a hot topic here as well. Let’s start with the positives.

The majority of the candidates on show were supporters of net neutrality, battling against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s mission to undo the protections. Of the potential candidates, Washington Governor Jay Inslee might steal the crown here.

California might have grabbed the headlines for introducing localised net neutrality rules, potentially paving the path for a constitutional crisis, however it was Inslee who was the first to put pen to paper. Washington’s localised net neutrality rules were introduced in March 2018, six months ahead of California.

More positive news focuses on the Lifeline Program, an initiative which helps poorer families access broadband options. This is another area which felt the fury of Pai’s administration, though several of the candidates opposed the cutting of funds. Warren, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand are three candidates which would support the Lifeline Program.

Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney is another who would want to shake the infrastructure game up. Sticking with the rural digital divide, Delaney is proposing the formation of an Infrastructure Bank, with funds of $50 billion, to help close the virtual chasm. This might sound attractive, but Delaney shares the same anti-China rhetoric as President Donald Trump. And that has been working out really well.

Should one of these individuals win the keys to the White House, the FCC could be in-line for yet another shake-up.

Now onto the negative side of regulatory reform. The privacy and data-handling activities of the internet giants have come under a lot of scrutiny and criticism over the last few months. This is unlucky to change, and perhaps will become a lot more aggressive as politicians search for PR points. This is a popularity contest after all.

Almost every candidate is calling for more regulatory reform, pulling down the curtain which hides the data machine fuelling the sharing economy. No-one who is involved in the data sharing economy, internet giants and telcos alike, want too many of these practises exposed as it would lead to public backlash. The industry has allowed the education of the general public to fall too far behind technological developments; any bold revelations will be scary.

Two candidates are setting themselves out from the pack with bold regulatory change, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Klobuchar’s idea is to introduce a digital dividend on participants of the sharing economy. A levy would be placed on any company which transfers personal data to a third-party, penalising those who monetize data. Those who collect data and use it internally, current or new product development for example, would not be included in the tax.

Yang on the other hand is perhaps proposing the most revolutionary idea; Universal Basic Income (UBI). Effectively, every person over the age of 18 in the US would be entitled to apply to receive $1,000 per month. Yang claims one in three jobs is under risk from automation and AI, therefore the money will help people compensate for this.

The UBI would be funded by consolidating all welfare payments for efficiencies, a new value added tax (VAT), new revenues through increased consumer disposable income and improvements to other areas such as healthcare. However, we suspect this would not cover the outgoings, so it would not be unfair to assume a tax would be placed on those companies benefiting from automation.

Another development mid-way through last year was an attack on the state sales tax regime which the eCommerce giants have enjoyed for so long. These rules would effectively end tax avoidance benefits so many national players have enjoyed by locating head quarters in states like Delaware. Gillibrand, Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar were Senators to voted in favour of the state led digital sales tax.

What is worth noting is policies are still in their early days, and the genuine lobbying from industry will not have started yet. Who knows what the headline policies will be in the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election, but the Democrats aren’t looking as Silicon Valley friendly as previous years.

Europe fines Google another €1.5 billion after belated Android concession

US search giant Google has received yet another fine from the European Commission, this time for abusing its dominant position in online advertising.

Specifically this ruling refers to ads served against Google search results embedded in third party websites. The EC doesn’t like the way Google used to go about this and, having reviewed loads of historical contracts between Google and these other websites, found the following:

  • Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites.
  • As of March 2009, Google gradually began replacing the exclusivity clauses with so-called “Premium Placement” clauses. These required publishers to reserve the most profitable space on their search results pages for Google’s adverts and request a minimum number of Google adverts. As a result, Google’s competitors were prevented from placing their search adverts in the most visible and clicked on parts of the websites’ search results pages.
  • As of March 2009, Google also included clauses requiring publishers to seek written approval from Google before making changes to the way in which any rival adverts were displayed. This meant that Google could control how attractive, and therefore clicked on, competing search adverts could be.

EC google ad graphic

Taken at face value this would appear to be a clear abuse of Google’s dominant position and it seems to have got off pretty lightly, since it got a much bigger fine for abusing Android’s dominant position last year, on which more below. The EC has been pretty consistent in its position on dominant US tech players deliberately seeking to restrict competition, just ask Microsoft and Intel, so none of this can have come as a surprise to Google.

“Today the Commission has fined Google €1.49 billion for illegal misuse of its dominant position in the market for the brokering of online search adverts,” said Commissioner in charge of competition policy Margrethe Vestager. “Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anti-competitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules. The misconduct lasted over 10 years and denied other companies the possibility to compete on the merits and to innovate – and consumers the benefits of competition.”

As the quote indicates, Google isn’t doing this anymore, but only packed it in once the EC flagged it up in 2016, so that’s still a decade of naughtiness. For some reason Google also chose today to show some belated contrition for one of the things it got fined for last year: forcing Android OEMs to preinstall Google Search and the Chrome browser.

In a blog post amusingly entitled Supporting choice and competition in Europe, Google SVP of Global Affairs Kent Walker started by stressing there’s nothing he loves more than healthy, thriving markets. Having said that he went on to make it clear that its most recent move to improve competition was taken solely to get the EC off its back.

“After the Commission’s July 2018 decision, we changed the licensing model for the Google apps we build for use on Android phones, creating new, separate licenses for Google Play, the Google Chrome browser, and for Google Search,” wrote Walker. “In doing so, we maintained the freedom for phone makers to install any alternative app alongside a Google app.

“Now we’ll also do more to ensure that Android phone owners know about the wide choice of browsers and search engines available to download to their phones. This will involve asking users of existing and new Android devices in Europe which browser and search apps they would like to use.”

How touching. Presumably today was some kind of deadline for Google to comply or else. The matter of browser choice is highly reminiscent of Europe’s case against Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The prime beneficiary of that was, you guessed it, Google, which now accounts for around two thirds of European desktop browser share (see chart), achieved through merit rather than cheating. How sad then, so see history repeating itself on mobile.

So that takes the total amount Europe has fined Google to €8.25 billion. In response to a question after her announcement (below) Vestager revealed the EC has some kind of fine ceiling of 10% of annual revenues so, since Google brought in around €120 billion last year that still leaves plenty of room for further fines if Google keeps getting funny ideas. Incidentally she also revealed that the fines get distributed to member countries, not trousered by the EC itself, which is reassuring.

Source: StatCounter Global Stats – Browser Market Share

Instagram’s garden is starting to blossom

Just as Facebook’s core platform is beginning to wilt, Instagram is launching an assault on the shopping market built on the walled garden business model which bloomed in by-gone years.

A few people might have scoffed at Facebook handing over $1 billion for Instagram in 2012, but this acquisition is looking to be a clever bit of business. Facebook’s core social media platform, and the business model which underpins it, might be looking a bit jaded after recent attacks, but Instagram is maturing into a very attractive proposition.

Launched today (March 19), users can now purchase products from certain brands in the Instagram app. The team has been working hard to create a marketplace in Instagram over the last 12-18 months, and while the digital advertising model has been paying off, you get the impression the narcissistic tendencies of the app lend itself well to the online shopping arena, especially when it comes to fashion.

“When you tap to view a product from a brand’s shopping post, you’ll see a ‘Checkout on Instagram’ button on the product page,” the team said in a blog post. “Tap it to select from various options such as size or color, then you’ll proceed to payment without leaving Instagram. You’ll only need to enter your name, email, billing information and shipping address the first time you check out.”

For retailers, this could be a very interesting route to potential customers, both old and new. Instagram has proven to be a very effective tool for brands to engage consumers from a brand marketing perspective, but in terms of direct sales, the risk of navigating to another website comes with shopping carts being abandoned. Through in-app purchases, one purchasing hurdle is removed, simplifying the buying process.

Customer information will be stored with Instagram, and while it has been reported the details will not be pre-populated in other Facebook platforms, it would not surprise us if this is in the pipeline. Instagram will receive payments as a percentage of the total spent in-app, though in Facebook’s typically transparent fashion, the waters have been muddied with the team not revealing how much this percentage is.

This is perhaps another perfect example of Facebook’s ability to create a walled garden and charge third-parties to access the cultivated digital customers.

For years, Instagram has been creating an incredibly user-orientated platform, which is simple but very usable and addictive. The only way for users to access these users, to try and pry open wallets, is to strike a deal with Facebook. Facebook is not monetizing its users directly but charging third-parties entry at the gate. This model worked incredibly well for years, putting Facebook is the dominant and influential position it is in today.

The beauty of this plan is that Facebook/Instagram seems to have struck at the right time. Users are becoming increasingly used to using the app as an online catalogue, geared around window shopping not purchases. Another update launched last year, allows users to click on products which might features in posts or stories to see more information. Taking it one step further is a logical step, as long as its not done too aggressively.

While the raw materials are certainly there, the challenge which Instagram will face is not to over commercialise the platform. This is what happened with Facebook’s core social media platform, the focus was less on engagement and more on advertising revenues, resulting in the new generation ignoring and traditional users spending less time on it. If Instagram has learned from prior mistakes, this could be a very interesting proposition, with plenty of room for growth.

That said, learning from mistakes is one thing but keeping under-pressure executives in-line is another. Slowing growth figures have put the Facebook management team under pressure from investors, while scrutiny placed on the traditional business model in ever-increasing. New regulations to remove some of the freedoms granted in the data-sharing economy put profits under threat, and as with any other publicly traded company, they will have to be replenished somehow.

Recent attempts to carve out new revenue streams, such as Watch or Today In, have seemingly not produced the hoped-for bonanzas. In the case of news app Today In, the team is ironically struggling because Facebook and Google effectively destroyed the commercial viability of so many regional news sources. The ‘locusts are complaining there is no more corn’ one Twitter user commented.

Another development which is worth keeping an eye on is the change in management. After 14 years working for Facebook and Instagram, Chief Product Officer Chris Cox announced he was leaving last week. A replacement has not been announced, but the experience of this individual might give some insight as to how aggressively commercial elements of Instagram will appear.

Despite criticisms which might be directed towards Facebook and Instagram, this looks to be an excellent strategy. The team have been cultivating this audience for some time and seem to have created the perfect conditions for growth… just as long as the team learn from previous mistakes.

Of the many challenges Facebook faces its intrinsic parasitism is the biggest

Facebook has recently bemoaned the decline in US local news sources, but a major reason for this has been the collapse in media advertising revenues.

Two companies are largely responsible for this decline: Google and Facebook. As digital replaced analogue as the primary way of consuming media, advertising moved to the main online content aggregators, specifically its dominant search engine and its dominant social media service. Not only did this suck revenue away from traditional media, it forced many media to resort to low-quality ‘clickbait’ journalism in order to drive the volumes of traffic its remaining advertisers increasingly demanded.

By definition aggregators don’t produce their own content and are entirely reliant on a steady flow of third party to keep its users active and the revenues it makes on the back of their searching and sharing flowing. This model is, therefore, intrinsically parasitic and comes with the major problem that parasites eventually kill their hosts.

Facebook has belatedly recognised this dilemma and launched a new initiative called ‘Today In’ late last year, that was designed to bring greater attention to local stuff on the site. On top of that it also said it would throw millions of dollars at local news earlier this year. Despite this, however, Facebook yesterday was moved to lament the existence of ‘news deserts’ in the US and is contributing to research to find out what is the cause of them. Some people seem to think that’s somewhat redundant.

facebook locust tweet

There are, of course, plenty of other threats to Facebook’s business model. The Cambridge Analytica scandal raised profound concerns around the use of all this personal data we’re sharing with Facebook. Meanwhile its role in a wide range of high-profile events ranging from elections to terrorist atrocities have put it under enormous pressure to curate and censor its content much more quickly and thoroughly than it currently does.

The parasitic business model is also at the core of a lot of this. In many ways Facebook operates like a very large media organisation, as it makes money by serving ads against traffic to content on its side. But since it doesn’t produce that content it is currently treated as a platform rather than a publisher, with a consequent freedom from direct responsibility for what it presents to its users.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that websites designed to host user-generated content are neither platforms nor publishers, but something in between. Politicians and regulators are increasingly calling for new rules and laws to address this paradox and it seems highly probable that these will both threaten revenues and significantly increase overheads for these companies.

So great are these challenges to Facebook that the company is already publicly contemplating a fundamental shift in its business model, with more controlled, private sharing as its new focus. This coincides with a its core revenues base, US Facebook users, clearly peaking, as you can see in the following slides from Facebook’s recent quarterly earnings presentation.

Facebook DAUs

Facebook ARPU

While user engagement has peaked in the US, Facebook still derives a disproportionate amount of revenue from that market thanks to its much higher ARPU there. But there is growing evidence that this may be increasingly coming from Instagram rather than the core Facebook product and mobile now accounts for nearly all of its revenues. All this points to the distinct possibility of Facebook, as we know it, being unrecognisable a decade from now as the legacy platform undergoes a managed decline.

Which brings us back to the parasitism issue. Facebook’s long term strategy seems to be to completely exhaust its current host while at the same time cultivating a new one. It’s hard to view all this hand-wringing about traditional media as anything more than a pretence at seeking a symbiotic relationship with it while it bleeds it dry. Independent journalist Tim Pool, as ever, has an instructive take on the broader situation.

 

Europe cools internet monopoly rhetoric

Almost every politician around the world is currently using Silicon Valley as a metaphoric punching bag, but the European Commission will not be drawn into the monopolies debate.

While 2020 Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has painted a target on the backs on the internet giants, Europe has once again proven it will not be drawn into making such short-sighted and shallow promises. Warren is effectively warming up for the world’s biggest popularity contest, and perhaps hasn’t considered the long-term realities of the dismantling of companies such as Facebook and Google.

Speaking at the South by Southwest festival in Austin (thank you Recode for the transcript), Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition, made a very reasonable and measured statement.

“We’re dealing with private property, businesses that are built and invested in and become successful because of their innovation,” said Vestager.

“So, to break up a company, to break up private property, would be very far-reaching. And you would need to have a very strong case that it would produce better results for consumers in the marketplace than what you could do with sort of more mainstream tools.”

Vestager’s point is simple. Don’t punish a company because of its success. Don’t make rash decisions unless there is evidence the outcome will be better than the status quo. While the fence is proving to be very comfortable, it is a logical place to sit now.

Following up with the European Commission press team, Telecoms.com was told the Commission does not have an official position when it comes to breaking up the internet monopolies. Vestager’s comments are representative of the Commission, and it will evaluate each case on its own merit. Effectively, the breaking up the monopolies is a last resort, and will only be done so in extreme circumstances.

This position is supported by a recent report, put together for HM Treasury in the UK by former Chief Economist to President Obama, Professor Jason Furman. Furman suggests new rules and departments need to be created for digital society, but monopolies, when regulated and governed appropriately, can be good for the progression of products, services and the economy overall.

This will of course be an unpopular opinion, but it makes sense. Sometimes there simply isn’t the wealth to share around. Monopolies are perhaps needed to create efficiencies and economies of scale to ensure progress is made at a suitable pace. However, the right regulatory framework needs to be in place to ensure this dominant position is not abused. A catch-all position should not be welcomed.

This is where the European Commission has been playing a notable role. Numerous times over the last few years, technology giants have been punished for creating and abusing dominant market positions, take Google as an example with Android antitrust violations last June, though it has not gone as far as breaking up these empires. The key here is creating a framework which encourages growth across the board but does not punish success.

Some would argue success in the pursuit of this delicately balanced equation has been incredibly varied, but this should not form the foundation of rash decisions and potential irreversible actions. Big is not necessarily bad.

This is the marquee promise of Senator Elizabeth Warren. In attempting to woo the green-eyed contradictory wannabee capitalists of Middle America, the Presidential contender has promised to split up the internet giants. The complexities and realities of this promise do not seem to have been thoroughly thought out, and it does seem to be a shallow attempt to lure the favour of those who seek fortunes but are unable to congratulate those who have found them.

That said, there are Presidential candidates who are suggesting good ideas. Senator Amy Klobuchar has suggested companies who monetize data through relationships with third-parties should be taxed. This is somewhat of a radical idea, but we do quite like the sound of it.

Firstly, for those companies who say they are collecting data to ‘improve customer experience’, there would be no impact. If the data is being used to enhance current or create new services, and therefore kept in-house, then fair enough. However, if the company is moving data around the digital ecosystem, monetizing personal information, why not place a levy on this type of activity. It might just encourage these companies to be more responsible when more scrutiny is being placed on these transactions.

This is the challenge we are all facing nowadays; the digital economy is a different beast and needs to be tamed using different techniques, regulations and practices. We all know this, but we haven’t actually figured out how to do it.

This is why we kind of like the non-committal, hands-off approach from the European Commission. For an organization which usually likes to run wild with the red-tape, this seems to be a much more sensible approach. Over regulating nowadays could create a patch-work from hell which would only have to be undone. It might seem like a cop-out, but governments should let business be business, while casting a watchful eye over developments.

When no-one really knows how the future is going to evolve, regulation is needed to hold companies accountable and protections are needed to safeguard the consumer. But rash decisions and ridiculous promises are the last thing anyone wants.

Facebook reportedly facing criminal charges over data sharing

Facebook’s day started off with a major outage and, should reports turn out to be true, it is ending with the social media giant facing a criminal investigation from Federal prosecutors.

According to the New York Times, a grand jury in New York has obtained records from two smartphone manufacturers, via subpoena, which will detail the data sharing partnerships in or previously in place with Facebook. Sources has retained anonymity and it is not exactly clear who the subpoenaed parties were, though Facebook did have more than 150 such relationships in place before winding-down over the last couple of years.

Although the investigation has not been officially confirmed, it will come as a surprise to few considering the scrutiny those dominating the data-sharing economy are facing. Over the last few months, there have been numerous attempts to weaken the influence of the internet giants, with some even suggesting legal force to break-up the empires. The internet giants created a cosy position, but this is certainly under threat.

That said, while the scandals over the last 18 months might lead some to presume the practice of selling personal data would be scaled back, there seems to be little evidence of this. A recent Motherboard investigation suggests various US telcos are still reaping the benefits, and in some cases, scaling up the practice.

What is worth noting is the concept of selling personal information is not illegal, as long as the right consent has been obtained from the end user. This is what Facebook, and the third-parties who entered into such arrangements, are facing criticism for today. Accusers suggest proper content was not obtained or done so in such a complicated fashion it should not be considered valid.

The data-sharing economy is gaining validity across the world, but only when the practice is managed in a fair and responsible manner. This is what GDPR and other regulations intend to enforce. The idea is not to stop the practice, but to ensure the companies involved act in a responsible manner, with the user properly informed and in control of the situation. The data-sharing economy can work, and can benefit everyone involved, as long as no single party abuses their position.

The partnerships which are reportedly being investigated here, however, have come under criticism for some time. Privacy campaigners suggest the partnerships violate a 2011 consent agreement between Facebook and the FTC, after allegations the social media giant had shared personal information in a way that deceived users. At one point, there were more than 150 such partnerships in place, though Facebook has been phasing out most of the agreements over the last few years.

Although this is a retrospective investigation into the company, it could potentially contradict statements from CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives suggesting the business was being more transparent and managing user data responsibly. Facebook has been making this statement for several years. This case could prove Facebook mislead the world with these claims as well.

There is a general feeling of ‘if’ not ‘when’ here. Politicians, governments and regulators are seemingly scouring the Facebook business for any cracks, allowing them to slap a significant fine and parade the streets with a victory on behalf of consumer privacy. Facebook’s lawyers have done a pretty good job of wriggling so far, but there is a bit of a feeling the dam could burst at any point.

Qottab, Quindim or Quesito? Google releases Android Q beta

Every year Google releases a new version of Android, and while it is marginally entertaining to guess what sweetie it will be named after, it also provides a very useful roadmap for the future of mobility.

In controlling roughly 74% of the global mobile Operating System (OS) market share, Android is in a unique position to dictate how the ecosystem develops over the short- and medium-term. This year’s update appears larger and more wide-ranging than previous iterations, perhaps representing the significant changes to the industry in recent months.

“In 2019, mobile innovation is stronger than ever, with new technologies from 5G to edge to edge displays and even foldable screens,” said Dave Burke, VP of Engineering for Android. “Android is right at the centre of this innovation cycle, and thanks to the broad ecosystem of partners across billions of devices, Android’s helping push the boundaries of hardware and software bringing new experiences and capabilities to users.”

Privacy updates, gaming enhancements, features to accommodate for new connectivity requirements and addressing the foldable phone phenomenon, there is plenty for developers to consider this year.

Privacy as a product

New demands are being placed on developers around the world when it comes to privacy, but in truth, they have no-one to blame for the extra work than themselves.

This is not to say all developers have abused the trust of the consumer, but numerous scandals over the last 18 months and the opaque manner in which society was educated on the data-sharing machine has created a backlash. Privacy demands have been heightened through regulation and consumer expectations, meaning these elements are slowly becoming a factor in the purchasing process.

There are numerous privacy and security updates here which suggests Google has appreciated the importance of privacy to the consumer. Privacy could soon become a selling point, and Google is on hand with many of the updates based on its Project Strobe initiative.

Perhaps one of the most important updates here is more granular control of the permissions for individual apps. Users will not only have more control on what data is shared with which apps, but developers can no-longer request for consent for a catch-all data hoovering plan, while Google is also cracking down on un-necessary permissions. The team is updating its User Data Policy for the consumer Gmail API to ensure only apps directly enhancing email functionality have authorisation, while the same is being done for call functionality, call logs and SMS.

Data Privacy Survey

Source: GDMA: Global data privacy: What the consumer really thinks

Aside from the permissions updates noted above, users will also have more control over when apps can get location data. While some developers have abused the trust of users by collecting this data when irrelevant as to whether the app is open or not, users will now have the power to give apps permission to see their location never, only when the app is in use (running), or all the time.

There are other updates to the permissions side including audio collections, access to cameras and other media files. All of these updates represent one thing; privacy is a real issue and (theoretically) the power is being handed back to the consumer.

That said, Ovum’s Chief Analyst Ed Barton notes the critical importance of privacy features today, however, as Google could be considered one of the main contributors to the root problem, you must question how much trust the consumer actually has.

“It is noteworthy that privacy is something one might reasonably assume to have in most situations in modern life except in one’s digital life where the default expectation is that a vast digital platform knows more about you than your life partner and immediate family,” said Barton. “It is these circumstances which enables the concepts of privacy, personal data control and trust to be highlighted and used as marketing bullets.

“Privacy in something like an OS is meaningless unless you can trust the entity which made it so with Android Q the question, as always, is ‘how much do you trust Google’?”

Gaming enters the mainstream

Another major update to Android Q looks to target the increasingly popular segment of mobile gaming.

“Gaming remains one of the most popular genres on the app stores, while smartphones have allowed the industry to connect with the masses,” said Paolo Pescatore of PP Foresight.

“This has led to emergence of new games providers and a surge in casual and social gamers, while the arrival of 5G will open further opportunities for cloud based multiplayer games due to faster and more reliable connections and low latency. Mobile devices will be key in this new wave that also promises to bring virtual and physical worlds closer together providing users with immersive experiences.”

Capture

Source: KPMG: The Changing Landscape of Disruptive Technologies report

Here, there are two main updates which we would like to focus on. Firstly, Vulkan and ANGLE (Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine) to improve more immersive experiences. And secondly, improved connectivity APIs.

Starting with the graphics side, Android Q will add experimental support for ANGLE on top of Vulkan on Android devices to allow for high-performance OpenGL compatibility across implementations. The team is also continuing to expand the impact of Vulkan on Android, with the aim to make Vulkan on Android a broadly supported and consistent developer API for graphics.

In short, this means more options and greater depth when it comes to creating immersive experiences.

On the connectivity front, not only has Google refactored the wifi stack to improve privacy and performance, developers can request adaptive wifi in Android Q by enabling high performance and low latency modes. There are of course numerous usecases for low latency throughout the connectivity ecosystem, but from a consumer perspective, real-time gaming and active voice calls are two of the most prominent.

Gaming has slowly been accumulating more support and penetrating the mass market, and some of the features for Android Q will certainly help this blossoming segment.

Foldable phones; fad or forever?

Considering the euphoria which was drummed up in Mobile World Congress this year, it should hardly come as a surprise the latest edition of Android addresses the new demands of the products.

“To help your apps to take advantage of these and other large-screen devices, we’ve made a number of improvements in Android Q, including changes to onResume and onPause to support multi-resume and notify your app when it has focus,” the team said in the blog announcement.

There are of course a number of useful features which come with the increased real-estate, one of which is being able to run more than one app simultaneously without having to flick back and forth, as you can see from the image below.

Google Update

There are of course advantages to the new innovation, but you have to question whether there are enough benefits to outweigh the incredible cost of the devices. The power of smartphone and the astonishing tsunami of cash in the digital economy is only because of scale. With Samsung’s foldable device coming in at $1,980, and Huawei’s at $2,600, these are not devices which are applicable for scale.

Google is preparing itself should the foldable revolution take hold, but mass adoption is needed more than anything else. The price of these devices will have to come down for there to be any chance of these devices cracking the mainstream market, and considering recent trends suggesting the consumer is becoming more cash conscious, they will have to come down a lot.

The price might also impact the development of the subsequent ecosystem. Developers are under time constraints already, and therefore have to prioritise tasks. Without the scale of mainstream adoption, few developers will focus on the new form factor when creating applications and content. With little reward, what’s the point? Price will need to come down to ensure there is appetite for the supporting ecosystem to make any use of this innovation.

We’ve been complaining about a lack of innovation in the devices market for years, so it is a bit cruel to complain when genuine innovation does emerge, but a lot of work needs to be done to give foldable screens as much opportunity for widespread consumer adoption.