Internet pioneer Tim Berners-Lee is on a hiring spree

Inrupt, the disruptive internet start-up founded by Tom Berners-Lee, has announced it is expanding its operational team as it pursues the redistribution of power in the internet era.

After inventing the world wide web in 1991, Berners-Lee (pictured) has been on somewhat of a crusade in recent years, heavily criticising the corporate nature of an invention which was intended to empower society. Inrupt is Berners-Lee’s answer to the unsatisfactory position.

“I’ve always believed the web is for everyone,” Berners-Lee said when launching the business. “That’s why I and others fight fiercely to protect it.

“The changes we’ve managed to bring have created a better and more connected world. But for all the good we’ve achieved, the web has evolved into an engine of inequity and division; swayed by powerful forces who use it for their own agendas.”

With the creation of an open-source project known as Solid, the Inrupt team hope to give the user a choice about where data is stored, who can access this information and what applications are used. The objective is to give the user the defining voice in how data is used, and in turn, eroding the power and influence of the corporations who have benefitted so greatly from the rise of the internet.

With Inrupt providing commercial energy and an ecosystem to help develop Solid, Berners-Lee has now announced a string of new hires to help drive the company forward.

Bruce Schneier has joined as Chief of Security Architecture, while Davi Ottenheimer has been appointed as VP of Trust and Digital Ethics. Osmar Olivo and Emmet Townsend will act as the VP’s of Product and Engineering respectively, adding a significant amount of weight to the operational team.

“Joining Inrupt is one of those rare opportunities to build something that will change the everyday lives of billions of people,” said Olivo. “The world is changing, and existing technologies aren’t designed to solve these kinds of problems. Everyone else is retrofitting for a safer world, Inrupt is building one.”

While the objectives of Inrupt might be considered aggressive by some in the industry, there is certainly some interest in the work. Glasswing Ventures, an early stage venture capital firm based in Massachusetts, has invested in Inrupt, while the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is working alongside Inrupt to create an ‘Early Years’ app that digitises the paper-based assessments currently used to review a child’s development up to the age of 2.5 years.

Inrupt certainly has the cash and the PR potential to make a dent in the technology status quo, and now it seems to have the muscle with these new employees. The issue which remains is whether this project can make the transition from an academic dream through to a commercial reality.

This is where critics have focused their attention to date. Berners-Lee’s criticism of the status quo is of course very timely, GDPR and California’s privacy laws pay homage to the same issues, but the question is whether an idea which could be viewed as revolutionary gains traction in the real world. Universities are full of blue-sky thinking innovators who have an idea which can change the course of history, but the truth is few are designed to accommodate the nuances of reality. Only time will tell to which column Inrupt falls into.

US unveils retaliation for French Digital Sales Tax

The US Trade Representative (USTR) has begun the process of targeting French cheese and fashion for trade tariffs in retaliation for Digital Sales Tax imposed by France.

While the vast majority of countries around the world feel a fair and reasonable taxation regime against technology companies would be a rational approach, the US Government has decided this is an attack on the US economy. Ironically, the US is accusing Europe of protectionism when US policies over the last few years have been the perfect example of how to define the term.

Looking at these tariffs, cheese and other diary products are the main focus of the 63-strong list, although French fashion businesses have also been targeted. Interestingly enough, sparkling wine has been included on the list, but no other types of wine.

Although such imports are daunting for the moment, this is a public consultation. Official action will take place, should the US continue down this path, over the coming months. The USTR has argued the Digital Sales Tax unfairly targets US companies.

“USTR’s decision today sends a clear signal that the United States will take action against digital tax regimes that discriminate or otherwise impose undue burdens on US companies,” said Ambassador Robert Lighthizer.

“Indeed, USTR is exploring whether to open Section 301 investigations into the digital services taxes of Austria, Italy, and Turkey. The USTR is focused on countering the growing protectionism of EU member states, which unfairly targets US companies, whether through digital services taxes or other efforts that target leading US digital services companies.”

The key difference between the policies of France and the US seem to have been completely missed by Lighthizer, and perhaps it is worth revisiting the definition of ‘protectionism’.

Protectionism (noun) the theory or practice of shielding a country’s domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports

France is not protecting its own domestic economy through the introduction of the Digital Sales Tax, it is attempting to make its own taxation rules fit for the digital era. These regulations were written in previous decades, where the idea of digital was only a glint in Bill Gates’ eye. These policies are designed so digital companies, all digital companies not just US ones, are not able to shift profits to tax havens to avoid paying a fair and reasonable rate back to the societies who are fuelling the monstrous growth.

On the other hand, President Trump has been actively engaging in protectionist policies against the Chinese, Canada and Mexico. This is the latest effort, though it has been suggested here that Austria, Italy, and Turkey are also in the firing line. One would suspect the UK, with its own approach to digital tax, is also being discussed behind closed doors, while the Czech Republic has also been making similar noises.

What is worth being noted is that the US internet firms will feel the greatest impact from the French Digital Sales Tax, which will only apply to companies with sales in excess of €25 million in France and €750 million globally. There are other companies which will fall into this category, Sweden’s Spotify for example, though this is not targeting the US, it just so happens US companies are the biggest proponents of creative tax strategies which bleed value out of a society, offering nothing in return.

Some sceptics might also suggest this has the right ingredients to create a new trade war. As the French Government believes it is being reasonable with its evolutionary digital tax regime, might we see retaliation for these import tariffs? This is exactly how the Chinese trade war began, though one would hope there is a more reasoned approach this time.

Ultimately this aggressive approach to international relations from the US Government will only end up as a net-loss. The world is heading towards a globalised economy, and the US is fighting back with Trump’s isolationist policies. Should these tariffs stay, good will only be more expensive for the consumer. Steel is an excellent example of this.

When Trump announced tariffs on imported washing machines, Whirlpool CEO Marc Bitzer was buoyed by the news. Six months later, the firm slashed its earnings outlook blaming tariffs placed on steel imports. Bitzer suggested steel in the US was now 60% higher than the rest of the world, impacting Whirlpool’s ability to offer cost effective goods to US consumers.

The White House might suggest that import taxes would force consumers to buy US products, but these products will be more expensive as soon supply chains and raw materials will be hit by the tariffs. You also have to take into account more stringent labour laws in the US, which will once again increase the price of goods.

Tariffs and protectionist policies do not create wealth and prosperity for the consumers of the aggressor. Trump doesn’t seem to understand the fundamentals of diplomacy, instead taking the aggressive and brash Wall Street approach to doing business to the Oval Office. The US is isolating itself and with Lighthizer promising further 301 investigations, it could be a sticky situation for the US consumer before too long.

Bringing Internet to the Other Half of the World

While global internet penetration is growing rapidly, half of the population is still unconnected, largely in emerging markets. This Telecoms.com Intelligence special briefing looks into what the business community and the public sector can do to overcome connectivity barriers on both the supply and demand sides. The aim of connecting the unconnected is not only to give everyone access to the tools many of us take for granted, but to do so in a sustainable way for the communications industry.

complete the short form below to access this briefing.

Amazon profits fall and its share price follows

Internet giant Amazon announced strong sales growth but that didn’t translate into profit after it invested heavily in one-day shipping.

The consequent significant year-on-year rise in operating expenses, combined with shrinking margin at AWS, where most of Amazon’s profit comes from, resulted in quarterly operating income declining for the first time in a while. While investors had been warned about the increased overheads, they were apparently even greater than expected, because Amazon’s share price declined 6% on the news.

“We are ramping up to make our 25th holiday season the best ever for Prime customers — with millions of products available for free one-day delivery,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO. “Customers love the transition of Prime from two days to one day — they’ve already ordered billions of items with free one-day delivery this year.

“It’s a big investment, and it’s the right long-term decision for customers. And although it’s counterintuitive, the fastest delivery speeds generate the least carbon emissions because these products ship from fulfillment centers very close to the customer — it simply becomes impractical to use air or long ground routes. Huge thanks to all the teams helping deliver for customers this holiday.”

As you can see from the table below, Amazon’s total overheads were 14 billion bucks higher in the most recent quarter than they were a year ago. North America is still where most of its sales are and thus where most of the overheads come from too. Profits disproportionality come from its AWS cloud services division, but even there margins are significantly reduced year-on-year.

Amazon has spent its entire history sacrificing profit on the altar of investment, and that seems to have paid off. So it’s hard to read too much into the share price fall other than a realisation among investors that Amazon is serious about this one-day delivery stuff. That will probably pay off in the long term too, and we expect Bezos isn’t very bothered about the short term reaction to his grand plan.

The internet is now 10% of US economy: a regulatory conundrum

Placing more stringent regulations on a sector is a delicate equation to balance, especially when it contributes so much to the national economy.

According to estimates from the Internet Association, the industry now accounts for 10.1% of the overall US economy, directly employing 4% of the working population and indirectly supporting a further 8.7%. These are the figures which have placed the politicians in such a precarious position.

Silicon Valley is driving progress in the US, however it has arguably become too powerful. The years of the ‘Wild Web’ cannot be allowed to continue, though politicians and regulators have to be careful when designing and placing the shackles on these monstrous companies; the last thing anyone wants is to inhibit or undermine an industry so important to economic growth.

Over the course of 2018, the Internet Association estimates the industry contributed $2.1 trillion to the US economy. This is more than double the $966 billion from five years ago, accounting for as much as 10.1% of the total. The number of jobs it also supports has doubled from 2014, directly employing 6 million individuals, while 13.1 million jobs were indirectly supported by the internet companies.

In comparison to other segments, the internet sector grew nine times faster than the US economy as a whole between 2012 and 2018. Since 2007, the US economy has grown by 41.8% compared to growth of 372% for the internet’s contribution. It is now the fourth largest sector in the US, only behind manufacturing, public administration and real estate.

And some might suggest this is only the tip of the iceberg. As more digital products and innovations are introduced, alongside more traditional aspects of our daily lives heading online, growth would presumably only head one direction.

As mentioned beforehand, this presents a conundrum to the politicians and regulators.

It has become increasingly popular over the last few months to point the finger of accusation at Silicon Valley. According to the politicians, these are companies who are navigating around the rules, ignoring the privacy rights of citizens and offering the opportunity for nefarious actors to trick, con and mislead.

Everyone realises the internet economy has to be brought under control through a stricter regulatory regime. The companies involved have not been responsible enough with the light-touch regulatory environment which has been afforded to them, however the iron fist of regulation cannot strike too hard. This is an industry which is thriving and adding so much value to the US economy, and subsequently, society.

Internet Association figures

If the US is to maintain its leadership position in the global economy, the internet industry is critically important, likewise the telecommunications industry.

5G is a topic which is dominating the headlines and will continue to do so. Those who harness the connectivity euphoria earliest could dominate the international markets for decades to come.

Launching 5G first is not necessarily anything to shout about, but the nation which can scale these networks the quickest will put themselves in an excellent position. Soon enough, the innovators will start to think of new products and services which have been enabled by 5G, irrelevant to whether they are consumer or enterprise focused, though the success of these products will depend on how widespread 5G connectivity actually is.

If you don’t have a large enough 5G network, these innovators cannot test their new ideas at scale, validate business models, or make the necessary tweaks to protect their investment from fast-followers. This concept was very evident in the 4G era.

The idea of Facebook as a mobile product or Uber did not exist until the 4G networks had scaled. There are numerous other examples, though these two are the most obvious. Once 4G networks and devices had been adopted by the mass market, these companies grew rapidly, contributing notably to the US economy.

Let’s compare this to a country which was slow to scale 4G networks. Someone might have had the same idea as Uber founder Travis Kalanick in the UK let’s say, but without the scaled 4G network, the idea couldn’t be validated or test properly, funding would have been more difficult to secure, domestic growth would have been stifled and less funds would have been available for international expansion. By the time the UK version was ready to push out internationally, it might have been so far behind Kalanick in the US the business died.

We have of course made this comparison up, but it proves a point of the importance of scaling the network, not just being the first to launch commercial services.

The same could be said about 5G networks. New businesses will emerge with this new connectivity dynamic, but where will the best ideas have the opportunity to scale domestically, before launching an assault on the global markets. Another interesting element is the attraction of foreign dollars. It you have the best network, you will lure R&D investments to the country from the likes of China, Germany and the UK. How many companies have a R&D centre in Silicon Valley nowadays?

All of these ideas will contribute to the success of the internet economy in the US.

However, the industry is at a critical point. It is facing a regulatory crack-down and 5G is quickly developing all around the world. Politicians and regulators need to create new rules to govern and force accountability, though they need to be careful they do not shackle an industry which is providing so much stimulus to the national economy.

France next on the list to be teased with Trump’s tariffs

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has opened an investigation into France’s digital sales tax, a move which could lead to the European nation facing trade tariffs.

The digital sales tax in France has been viewed as a means to force internet companies to play fair. The creative accounting practices of these companies has ensured nominal tax has been paid to various European states, and France has had enough. The proposed tax has passed through the lower parliamentary house, the National Assembly, and is expected to get the final thumbs-up today from the Senate.

As a result, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has announced the launch of an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 of the Digital Services Tax (DST) into the French government. This is the very same tool used by the Trump administration to justify the introduction of tariffs against China due to the alleged theft of IP.

“The United States is very concerned that the digital services tax which is expected to pass the French Senate tomorrow unfairly targets American companies,” said Lighthizer.

“The President has directed that we investigate the effects of this legislation and determine whether it is discriminatory or unreasonable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.”

What is worth noting is that while many US companies might find themselves paying more tax, this is not necessarily a move to raid the US economy. This tax has been directed towards all digital companies who abuse the international tax system to the detriment of the French government and society irrelevant as to their nationality, it just so happens the US dominates the internet industry.

Many will view the French move as a gallant effort to hold the internet economy accountable, though it seems the US does not feel the same way; its own economy and society does of course benefit from the tax skulduggery.

The suggestion of the US imposing tariffs on the US comes two days after President Trump declared Indian tariffs on US goods should be a thing of the past.

The tax itself has been in the pipeline for some time, as European nations have become increasingly frustrated by the taxation strategies of the digital economy. Companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon have been shifting profits freely throughout the world to ensure lower taxation rates are paid. This move from France, to impose a 3% sales tax on revenues realised within its borders, seems like an effective counter-punch.

What is worth noting is it is not just the US firms who are abusing this taxation system. Sweden’s Spotify is another which has played the system well. In the UK, as an example, the company reported revenues of £444 million over the course of 2017 but paid £891,425 in tax as it only reported advertising revenues in the country. Revenues associated with the ‘Premium’ subscription product were moved to Sweden where it could pay less tax.

France is not alone with its frustrations either. The UK is another nation which is considering its own digital tax reforms, while the European Commission attempted to pass bloc-wide rules recently. These rules were blocked by the likes of Ireland and Luxembourg, two countries who benefit significantly from the fleecing of other nations.

Now onto the US response. Section 301 and related provisions of the Trade Act offer the USTR the opportunity to investigate what it or the White House deem as a foreign country’s unfair trade practices. There will be a public consultation and lobby efforts from Silicon Valley and should the USTR conclude France is unfairly persecuting US business, tariffs could be directed towards imported cheese and garlic.

Tariffs are a popular weapon for Trump and the White House hacketmen on the international trade scene, as it is becoming increasingly common for US diplomats to huff and puff, while banging their chest and showing off their biceps when things don’t go their way.

Unfortunately, the US doesn’t really have a leg to stand on here, though the presence of logic will not persuade the hawks from their flightpath. Internet companies, all over the world for that matter, are taking advantage of a dated taxation system which allows them to grow bank accounts without recontributing to the country which has fuelled this prosperity. There is little which can be said to counter this position.

Interestingly enough, the move could spark wider tensions. The relationship between the White House and the European Union is already stressed and targeting a single member state might not be received well by the bloc. The US feels targeting a single member state is legitimate, though there might well be a bigger conversation to be had in Brussels.

With the clouds of tariffs already lurking above the European automotive industry, the US might find itself with another trade disagreement on its hands before too long.

The WWW inventor wants to reinvent the web

Father of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee has launched the “Contract for the Web” initiative to rally the global community to revamp the web for the public good.

30 years after he proposed an “information management system” (pictured) while being a scientist at CERN, Sir Tim Berners-Lee believes that he could stand no longer what the web has become of lately. In 2018 Berners-Lee told the Vanity Fair magazine that he was “devastated” by the state of distortion of his creation. As a result, on the 30th birthday of the WWW, he decided to use his influence to bring the web back on the track he envisioned: it should be recognised as a human right and be built for the public good. “If we give up on building a better web now, then the web will not have failed us. We will have failed the web,” Berners-Lee said.

According to Berners-Lee, the dysfunction of the web in recent years has mainly been manifested in three ways:

“1. Deliberate, malicious intent, such as state-sponsored hacking and attacks, criminal behaviour, and online harassment.

“2. System design that creates perverse incentives where user value is sacrificed, such as ad-based revenue models that commercially reward clickbait and the viral spread of misinformation.

“3. Unintended negative consequences of benevolent design, such as the outraged and polarised tone and quality of online discourse.”

To counter these dysfunctional behaviours, the non-profit World Wide Web Foundation (or “Web Foundation”) led by Berners-Lee is launching a civil society initiative, “Contract for the Web”, that calls out to governments, businesses, and private individuals, to pledge their commitments to a better future of the web.

It has different requirements for the three types of constituencies.

It demands governments to ensure everyone can connect to the internet; keep all of the internet available, all of the time; and respect people’s fundamental right to privacy.

It asks businesses to make the internet affordable and accessible to everyone; respect consumers’ privacy and personal data; and develop technologies that support the best in humanity and challenge the worst.

It challenges individuals to hold the governments and businesses accountable; be creators and collaborators on the web; build strong communities that respect civil discourse and human dignity; and fight for the web so the web remains open and a global public resource for people everywhere, now and in the future.

Under these principles, a group of people are working on the specific commitments in each area. The group is open to input from all (institutions and individuals alike) who share the vision, and the results of the work are expected later this year.

Signatories so far include some of the world’s biggest internet companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Facebook), other non-profit organisations (e.g. W3C), private citizens and celebrities and former and current politicians (e.g. Sir Richard Branson, Gordon and Sarah Brown), telecom operators (Telefonica), and governments (Die Bundesregierung).

The level of endorsement and commitment the initiative may ultimately garner is yet to be seen and will depend on the specifics being developed. Some governments may be hesitant towards the demand for allowing its citizens to access all the information on the internet without filtering, while others may feel they would prefer to have access to some of the people’s private data to strengthen public security. The demands for businesses may be seen as threatening the very livelihood of some companies whose business models have built on monetising user data.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee never made wealth out of his invention, but his transformational role has been well recognised. Stephen Fry once identified Sir Tim as one of the two living Englishmen that have had the most profound impact on people’s lives worldwide, the other being Apple’s Chief Design Officer Jony Ive.

EU set to proceed with controversial new online copyright rules

Inevitably the EU Copyright Directive, complete with its widely despised Articles 11 and 13, is continuing its glacial progress along the European rubber-stamping conveyor belt.

Last month we reported that the directive appeared to have hit a road bump, but this turned out to be a fleeting inconvenience, resolved by the most token of concessions. Yesterday both the European Commission and European Parliament announced a breakthrough in the fraught negotiations, from which a miraculous consensus was reached.

“To finally have modern copyright rules for the whole of EU is a major achievement that was long overdue,” said VP for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip. “The negotiations were difficult, but what counts in the end is that we have a fair and balanced result that is fit for a digital Europe: the freedoms and rights enjoyed by internet users today will be enhanced, our creators will be better remunerated for their work, and the internet economy will have clearer rules for operating and thriving.”

“This deal is an important step towards correcting a situation which has allowed a few companies to earn huge sums of money without properly remunerating the thousands of creatives and journalists whose work they depend on,” said MEP Axel Voss, who seems to speak for the European Parliament on this stuff.

“At the same time, this deal contains numerous provisions which will guarantee that the internet remains a space for free expression. These provisions were not in themselves necessary because the directive will not be creating any new rights for rights holders. Yet we listened to the concerns raised and chose to doubly guarantee the freedom of expression. The ‘meme’, the ‘gif’, the ‘snippet’ are now more protected than ever before.”

As you can see both spokespeople are doing a heavy sell on the directive because they know it’s unpopular. Not that it really matters because In place of actual democratic accountability, the EU has a self-reinforcing system of largely opaque bodies. This is apparently done to create the impression of rigorous due process but it’s very rare for the real power in Brussels – the European Commission – to receive any significant internal resistance once it has decided on a course of action.

The most unpopular part of the Directive is Article 13, which requires sites to either seek licenses for, or pre-emptively block the upload of, any material that may be copyright protected, or face the consequences of any breach themselves. Close second in terms of public derision is Article 11, which will require a license to reproduce all but the shortest snippets of written content and may apply to things like link previews.

Appropriately enough none of the announcements linked directly to the test of the agreement, but once more we indebted to MEP Julia Reda, who quickly blogged on the matter. “The history of this law is a shameful one,” she wrote. “From the very beginning, the purpose of Articles 11 and 13 was never to solve clearly-defined issues in copyright law with well-assessed measures, but to serve powerful special interests, with hardly any concern for the collateral damage caused.”

The special interests she referred to are big publishers, who she reckons have lobbied the EU to protect their traditional revenue streams. This theory would appear to be supported by the fact that smaller publishers and rights holders seem far less keen on the new rules. Reda, who you can see alongside a small number of other dissenting MEPs in the video below, thinks the Directive can still be stopped if the European Parliament can be persuaded to oppose it but this seems like a forlorn hope.

Zoey Forbes, Technology, Media and Entertainment Associate at law firm Harbottle & Lewis, offers another perspective. “On the surface, the agreed text was an early Valentine’s Day present for creatives and the wider content industry,” she said. “Copyright holders will receive additional revenues from the use of their works online as well as greater protection from online copyright infringement.

“However, as with all things, the devil is in the detail and some stakeholders feel the safeguards offered to the tech industry have not only watered down the EU’s original objectives but will actually leave copyright holders worse off. Conversely, the tech industry and those advocating for freedom of expression are not appeased by these safeguards and continue to oppose the directive on an ideological level.”

The EU is positioning all this as protecting the European little guy from voracious Silicon Valley giants who profit from traffic driven by third party content. There is some merit to that position, but it doesn’t seem to have consulted many little guys, nor thought more deeply about the mechanics of the internet, which rely heavily on the viral sharing of stuff. It’s not at all clear that the stated beneficiaries of this set of rules will, in fact, benefit, but the EU supertanker isn’t about to change course over such minor concerns.

 

User backlash after Tencent’s Reddit interest

Chinese internet giant Tencent is reportedly leading the pack for Reddit’s Series D round, with the social media giant aiming to raise between $150 and $300 million, but not everyone is happy.

Reddit, a social media platform for news aggregation, web content rating and conspiracy theories, has been beating its chest to the press over the last couple of weeks to drum up interest for the funding round. According to Alexa website rankings, Reddit is the 17th most visited website worldwide, while it claims to have 330 million monthly active users, 138,000 active communities and 14 billion page views a month.

And it appears to have caught the attention of one of the worlds’ fastest growing internet businesses. According to TechCrunch, Reddit is hoping to raise between $150 and $300 million, which would value the platform between $2.7 billion and $3 billion. Details are thin for the moment, but what is worth remembering is the Tencent stake would be relatively minor.

That has not stopped criticism on the platform from users however. Many are linking the Chinese distaste for free speech with the demise of Reddit. Some are using the freedoms afforded by the Reddit platform to voice their concerns that Tencent might be able to block certain conversations and impose some levels of censorship. Reddit is currently blocked by the Great Firewall of China, though some fear with Tencent’s involvement the censorship could be extended elsewhere.

What is worth noting is Tencent is not acquiring the business but investing in it. Depending on the total amount pumped into Reddit, Tencent will certainly gain some influence from a strategic and development perspective, all investor do to a degree, but it will be very limited. Another factor to consider is that depending on the type of shares which Tencent acquires, it might not even be granted a seat on the Board of Directors.

That said, such is anti-China rhetoric around the world, this deal will catch the attention of politicians. There is perhaps little which can be done to prevent the investment, though the involvement of a Chinese business might bring greater scrutiny down on Reddit. While it has not be the centre of any scandals to date, it certainly does have the capability of influencing a wide, deep and highly engaged audience. The success of the business will partly rely on the management team’s ability to manage this new dynamic with politicians.

While Reddit is one of the most popular social media platforms on the internet, it is rarely considered in the same bracket as sites such as Facebook or Twitter. The number speak for themselves, though as the site does not look anywhere near as polished and as it does not feel as overtly commercial, it has snuck under the radar to escape the same scrutiny which is placed on the other platforms. We suspect this will change over the coming months however.

Recently the business has been going through somewhat of a refurbishment to take it into the big leagues. With a site redesign, the introduction of a native video player and the team has started to sell cost-per-click ads in addition to promoted posts, cost per impression and video adverts, it is starting to get the feel of a genuine internet business. This, alongside investment from a Chinese company, might bring it more to the attention of governments and regulators, many of whom are attempting to crack down on internet companies.

For Tencent, this is an investment which makes sense. Having created a monstrous business in China, primarily through the influence of WeChat and QQ, the team is looking to spread its wings in the international markets. There certainly has been some organic growth into the international space, though Tencent has certainly not been shy about investments and acquisitions.
Over the last few years Tencent has invested in several game developers including a minority stake in Robot Entertainment, videogame developer and publisher Glu Mobile paying $126 million and 84.3% of Finland-based developer Supercell for $8.6 billion. The firm also has holdings in Riot Games, Epic Games and Activision Blizzard. All of these titles have increased the presence of the firm in the international arena, as well as its influence in the data economy.

While expansion into the international arena is nothing new, attempting to muscle into the social media and news aggregation segment has got a few people anxious. Considering the Chinese approach to freedom of speech, Tencent’s involvement in Reddit has gotten a few users asking questions, while governments are bound to wade into the equation sooner rather than later.

Is telecom losing Europe’s next generation employees?

Telecoms companies did not feature in the top employers’ lists chosen by the current and potential young employees in a recent multi-country survey.

The Swedish consulting firm Academic Work recently published the results of a survey on current and future young employees in six European countries, which asked the respondents to choose their most “aspired” employer, hence the title of the survey “Young Professional Aspiration Index (YPAI) 2018”. Among the three Nordic countries where it broke down the details of the employers the young people most like to work for, Google came on top in all of them (it tied with Reaktor in Finland, the consulting firm behind the country’s big AI drive). None of the telecom companies, be it telcos or telecom equipment makers, made to the top-10’s.

 YPAI 2018

The survey was done in the four Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark) plus Germany and Switzerland. Nearly 19,000 young people, a mixture of students (22%), current employed (59%), as well as job seekers (15%) answered the survey. The majority of the respondents came out of Sweden, while just under 1,000 respondents were registered from Finland and Norway. Presumably the sample sizes were not big enough in the other three countries to break down the top-10 company lists.

YPAI 2018 respondents

In addition to asking the respondents to name their preferred employers, the survey also asked them about their most important criteria when choosing a place to work. “Good working environment and nice colleagues” came on top in four out of the six countries (chosen by 60% of the respondents in Sweden, 78% in Denmark, 73% in Germany, and 66% in Switzerland). It tied with “Leadership” in Sweden. In Finland coming on top was “varied and challenging tasks”, chosen by 60% of those who answered the survey, while in Norway 64% of the young people surveyed chose “training / development opportunities” as the most important criterion.

Once upon a time (i.e. around the turn of the century), telecom was THE industry to work in. It has been losing some of its old lustre to the internet giants. If they “aspire” to re-take the top spot of the young people’s mind share, the Ericssons and Nokias and Telenors of the world may want to refer to these criteria when promoting their corporate image, as a starting point.