Author Topic: After Facebook  (Read 114206 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
After Facebook
« on: May 21, 2012, 21:50:24 »
I obviously use anti social media, but it drives me insane to see people logging onto Facebook at work; especially given the total lack of privacy and respect that the company shows its users, not to mention stupid OPSEC and PERSEC tricks. Even as Facebook is making its much hyped IPO ($100 million despite the lack of monetization on the platform?), people are starting to look beyond Facebook.

Here are some social media apps that might take social media to the next level (and don't worry, I'm not partaking on these either):

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/social-networking-apps/

Quote
7 Social Networking Apps for When Facebook Jumps the Shark

    By Christina Bonnington
    Email Author
    May 21, 2012 |
    6:30 am |
    Categories: apps

You can't even escape Facebook on Google+. Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired

According to a recent poll by the Associated Press and CNBC, 46 percent of respondents think Facebook will “fade away as new things come along.” That’s an ominous data point for a company whose IPO dominated the news cycle last week, and claims some 900 million worldwide users.

Facebook seems to be infiltrating every facet of our lives. “Like” buttons appear on every website. “Like us on Facebook!” shouts at us during TV commercials. And more and more apps rely on Facebook to simply log in. It’s starting to feel more than a little oppressive — it’s like we’re living in a blue-and-white-painted jail cell.

And all this IPO madness is just foul icing on the cake.

So where do you turn when the world’s been stricken with Facebook fever? We rounded up seven apps that could satisfy your social networking needs should Facebook go down the tubes — or you just can’t take it anymore.

Google+

As Facebook fervor dies down, Google’s social networking attempt could rise up to the occasion, and — dare we say it — eventually take its place.

The popularity of Google+ is definitely on the rise. A number of commenters pointed out in our hands-on with Google’s redesigned iOS app that they are fervent users of the network, finding it a great source for quality content minus the “moronic posts” that litter Facebook feeds.

Speaking of the redesign, Google+’s updated iPhone app (see photo above) features an attractive, almost post-modern aesthetic and a much-improved user experience. The Android version is set to get a facelift in the near future, too. Google+ is one of the few social networks that has both a robust mobile and web experience, making it a strong contender for those tired of that other social network.

Viddy

For something a little different, how about a social network based entirely around sharing video? That’s Viddy.

You can take a video using the app’s camera, which has adjustable white balance, exposure, and focus settings. You can also grab a video already in your camera roll, and upload it to Viddy. From there, you can go hog-wild with Instagram-like creativity, adding one of a handful of different filters — Vintage, Black & White, and Crystal are default options, with more available as free in-app downloads. You can also add music, transitions, and other visual effects.

With one click you can share your videos to other platforms like Twitter or YouTube. Or you can just stay in the app and like, comment, and re-share others’ videos. The videos you can upload are bite-sized — 15 seconds max — so it’s easy and fun to hop from one video to the next.

Viddy launched in February this year, and now has 36 million monthly active users, or “Viddyographers.”

Path

The Path app is available for iPhone and Android. Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired

For an exclusively mobile social networking experience, Path could be your bag. It lets you share your life in the form of a “simple, private journal.” Because it has no web component, I find it’s much more of an “in the moment” kind of sharing than a platform for long status update tirades, or ubiquitous link-sharing.

The design is charming and intuitive, and is one of the main draws of the experience. Similar to Facebook, you get to set a background “cover” image for your profile, and choose a personal profile photo for yourself. Your postings as well as those of your friends (including status updates, photos, check-ins, and the music you’re currently listening to) are uploaded in a straightforward, reverse-chronological timeline, and you can react to posts with a heart, one of four different smiley faces, or with a comment.

It’s available on iOS and Android.

Pair

If it’s just you and your significant other who you care about constantly connecting with, you don’t need a massive social network like Google+, or even Path. Instead, you need Pair.

Oleg Kostour, Pair cofounder and CEO, told Wired the app offers a more personal way to talk to someone significant in your life — and it’s entirely private.

The app centers around a conversation between you and your loved one, but besides SMS-style messaging, you can share photos, drawings, and video, as well as location check-ins. You can also collaborate on art (for a simultaneous game of tic-tac-toe for instance), or use the app’s trademark feature, the thumb kiss: You and your partner place your thumbs on your respective smartphone screens at the same time, and when they’re pressed against identical spots onscreen for a couple of seconds, the screen bursts and you’ve virtually “kissed.”

Since the app is designed to be used between only two people, it’s a bit of a small, nontraditional social network, if it can really even be classified as such.

Instagram

Instagram is now available on both iOS and Android. Photo: Ariel Zambelich/Wired

Wait. Instagram is… part of Facebook now? F7U12.

Even so, Instagram is still our favorite way to share square-cropped photos colored by fun, often retro-inspired filters. The $1 billion photo-sharing community is rich and active, and most of all, incredibly addictive. Once you start using Instagram, you start seeing the world in a different way — as moments you’d like to capture and enhance with a filter effect to amplify a particular mood.

Because Instagram is more of a niche social network, it would never fully take the place of a larger network like that of Facebook or Google+. Nevertheless, it provides a fun, friendly way to see the world through smartphone lenses across the globe.

Instagram is now available on both iOS and Android.

EveryMe

EveryMe is both an amalgamation of your existing major social networks — Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram — and a complete departure.

The app is all about circles of contacts, each of which is private. There’s no option for public sharing at all in this app. Because of this, you shouldn’t have to worry about privacy settings being changed on a whim, or private posts suddenly appearing to all of the interwebs.

Once you’ve synced with your favorite existing networks, the app automatically creates circles of contacts (pulled from your smartphone contacts). You can edit these so-called “Magic Circles,” or create your own. If you have people you want to stay in touch with who don’t have a social media presence, that’s OK too. You can add them with an e-mail address or a phone number so they can stay in the loop.

You can then interact with people in those circles, posting status updates, check-in information, and photographs. Anything you update to one circle is exclusive to that circle — so you don’t have to worry about grandma and grandpa stumbling upon those photos of you doing a kegstand from last weekend, unless you know, you post them in the wrong circle.

Twitter

Wait, Facebook is, like, a “thing”? That’s funny, because at Gadget Lab, we gravitate to Twitter more often. We rely on it daily — hourly, really — for news alerts and socializing. Between the app, website, and the handful of very successful third-party clients, Twitter has solidified itself into an expedient, convenient social media mainstay that complements other more robust sharing services.

Sure, it’s more about news, and less about social networking, but it’s the one social network we’d be least inclined to ever give up.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline The Crowe

    Sushi out the arse.

  • Albainn Gu Brath!
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,747
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
  • Just some guy.
    • Daniel MacEnchroe
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2012, 22:14:20 »
Gotta crawl out of the duct work every once and a while...  :)

I'd love to see Facebook crash and burn - It's a bloated POS that allows stupidity to run rampant while worthy content is stifled. In saying that it's something that is going to be around for a long time; It has become the social network standard. I love virtually every feature of G+ but it suffers a grand failure... No one I know uses it. Everyone has become too comfortable with Facebook and it's nestled into the hearts of people that can't care to move on just like the Internet Explorer fanbase.

I'll cut my rambling short. That's my stance on all of this.
Ex-CI of A&SH of C (PL) 2347 RC(Army)CC (2010-2011)
Ex-RSM of A&SH of C (PL) 2347 RC(Army)CC (2002-2008)

http://www.macenchroe.com

Offline Sythen

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 25,956
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 461
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2012, 22:22:50 »
Reading this made me think of an article I read the other day. Basically outlines a lot of good reasons Facebook isn't going anywhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/tech/social-media/facebook-gallaga/index.html?hpt=hp_bn11

Though I hate Facebook, I still use it on a fairly regular basis simply because there is no better way to keep in contact with some people. I really don't need to hear from people on  day to day basis, or keep up with their every move and thought.. But its nice to get an email that someone has posted a message in one of the closed groups I am in on Facebook every so often.
Written on Soldier’s Tower, University of Toronto:

Their story is not graven only on stone over their native earth, but lives on far away, without visible symbol, woven into the stuff of other men’s lives

"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.  Let's start with typewriters."
Frank Lloyd Wright, architect

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 19:46:20 »
My daughter complained about using Facebook for a similar reason, many of the people in school simply do not have email accounts and this is the only means of communication outside of texting. (oddly, no one seems to use the voice transmission functions on cell phones anymore). She is well aware of some of the pitfalls of Facebook, including internet stalkers, scam artists and the fact that Facebook simply has no respect for the rights of the user.

This isn't the only system with hidden (or not so hidden) threats to the user, Apple's Siri program isn't the benign digital assistant advertised either:

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/ibm-bans-siri/

Quote
IBM Outlaws Siri, Worried She Has Loose Lips
By Robert McMillanEmail Author May 22, 2012 |  7:01 pm |  Categories: Security, Software as a Service

Siri doesn't work on IBM's internal networks. (Image: Flickr/Photo Giddy)
If you work for IBM, you can bring your iPhone to work, but forget about using the phone’s voice-activated digital assistant. Siri isn’t welcome on Big Blue’s networks.

The reason? Siri ships everything you say to her to a big data center in Maiden, North Carolina. And the story of what really happens to all of your Siri-launched searches, e-mail messages and inappropriate jokes is a bit of a black box.

IBM CIO Jeanette Horan told MIT’s Technology Review this week that her company has banned Siri outright because, according to the magazine, “The company worries that the spoken queries might be stored somewhere.”

It turns out that Horan is right to worry. In fact, Apple’s iPhone Software License Agreement spells this out: “When you use Siri or Dictation, the things you say will be recorded and sent to Apple in order to convert what you say into text,” Apple says. Siri collects a bunch of other information — names of people from your address book and other unspecified user data, all to help Siri do a better job.

How long does Apple store all of this stuff, and who gets a look at it? Well, the company doesn’t actually say. Again, from the user agreement: “By using Siri or Dictation, you agree and consent to Apple’s and its subsidiaries’ and agents’ transmission, collection, maintenance, processing, and use of this information, including your voice input and User Data, to provide and improve Siri, Dictation, and other Apple products and services.”

Because some of the data that Siri collects can be very personal, the American Civil Liberties Union put out a warning about Siri just a couple of months ago.

Privacy was always a big concern for Siri’s developers, says Edward Wrenbeck, the lead developer of the original Siri iPhone app, which was eventually acquired by Apple. And for corporate users, there are even more potential pitfalls. “Just having it known that you’re at a certain customer’s location might be in violation of a non-disclosure agreement,” he says.

But he agrees that many of the issues raised by Apple’s Siri data handling are similar to those that other internet companies face. “I really don’t think it’s something to worry about,” he says. “People are already doing things on these mobile devices. Maybe Siri makes their life a little bit easier, but it’s not exactly opening up a new avenue that wasn’t there before.”

But other companies have been pressured by privacy groups over the way they store customer data. Google, for example, has come under fire in the past for the way it handles a massive database of user search data. But IBM doesn’t ban Google. An IBM spokesman declined to comment further on the Technology Review story, saying “we prefer to let the story stand on its own,” but there are a couple of important differences between Siri and Google that may have IBM worried: For one, Siri can be used to write e-mails or text messages. So, in theory, Apple could be storing confidential IBM messages. Apple couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

Another difference: After being dogged by privacy advocates, Google now anonymizes search results — making them difficult, if not impossible, to trace back to an individual user — after nine months.

Maybe if Apple agreed to do something like that, Siri would be welcome over in Armonk, New York.

This story has been updated to include a statement from IBM.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Dkeh

  • Walker of Miles
  • Member
  • ****
  • 8,312
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 106
  • Infansmarted
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2012, 09:18:44 »
I use Facebook simply because it is the most convenient way to get ahold of people, period. Whatever I put up there, I assume everyone can see it, from the Government, to the Queen, to my mother. If one of those people would not approve, it doesn't go on Facebook.

Along with the privacy rights... something has always confused me. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if people know everything about you? I'm not asking to be patronizing, I am asking because I have never heard a good explanation, other than "I don't like big brother looking at everything I do".
This officer can be trusted with a weapon, or with ammo, but never both at the same time.

"you'll find that besides the shorter haircuts and adherence to timings, CF members aren't really that different than the rest of Canada" - Dimsum

Offline Ignatius J. Reilly

    ars longa vita brevis.

  • Member
  • ****
  • 95,672
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 103
  • Leaning Into The Curve
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2012, 10:20:44 »
Gotta crawl out of the duct work every once and a while...  :)

I'd love to see Facebook crash and burn - It's a bloated POS that allows stupidity to run rampant while worthy content is stifled. In saying that it's something that is going to be around for a long time; It has become the social network standard. I love virtually every feature of G+ but it suffers a grand failure... No one I know uses it. Everyone has become too comfortable with Facebook and it's nestled into the hearts of people that can't care to move on just like the Internet Explorer fanbase.

I'll cut my rambling short. That's my stance on all of this.

I entirely concur. I recently went so far as to unfriend everyone on my fakebook. I just couldn't stand the minute drivel that folks post when they feel they don't have enough to write an email. In point of fact, I only maintain my facebook account for the sole reason of playing AfghanOPs.
Strange, but true.

Though, it must be said, that Google + is catching on. Slow, but sure. I particularly enjoy the video hangout option. Far better usability & audio/video quality than Skype.
 :geek:
"Turn Ye To The Stronghold,
Ye Prisoners of Hope."
ZECHARIAH 9:12

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 472,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,903
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2012, 10:31:06 »
...oddly, no one seems to use the voice transmission functions on cell phones anymore....
...unless they're driving....or loudly when they're standing in a check-out line.

Online PMedMoe

    is now a flat-faced civvy.... :).

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 245,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,997
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2012, 10:45:15 »
...unless they're driving....or loudly when they're standing in a check-out line.

You forgot in restaurants, right at the table next to you......   ::)
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving".
~ Lao Tzu~

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2012, 22:27:25 »
What I find amazing is that they will even text each other while they are in the same room. ::)
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2012, 00:50:12 »
Along with the privacy rights... something has always confused me. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if people know everything about you? I'm not asking to be patronizing, I am asking because I have never heard a good explanation, other than "I don't like big brother looking at everything I do".

You might change your mind at some point about what you posted. You might even think that deleting your posts will erase the offending item, only to discover Facebook put it back up on your page when they rolled out the timeline feature. There is nothing in the EULA to prevent them from doing this at any time, without any notice or warning to you.

More menacing, your information is out there where people can compile that information for such purposes as identity theft, or noxious marketing schemes (the actual reason for the IPO, incidentally; the only marketable asset Facebook has is detailed records of your behaviour to develop marketing profiles). Military members should also be aware that massive database files of Facebook postings can and do exist, and can be "mined" by search engine programs to develop PERSEC and OPSEC information by aggregating millions of snippets of information.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Dkeh

  • Walker of Miles
  • Member
  • ****
  • 8,312
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 106
  • Infansmarted
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2012, 09:32:52 »
I am well aware of these issues, however it is not just Facebook. Everyone leads a life that has been digatalized theses days- felonies, tickets, address, phone numbers, relatives. Everything is right there at your fingertips, if you know where to look.

EULA's are another matter entirely. As a gamer, they outrage me. As a customer, they infuriate me. In the end, I buy it / use it anyways.

PERSEC and OPSEC are definitely valid points. It then comes down to the individual soldier to use their brain, judgement, and foresight when they post something. Perhaps we will see a case of a soldier eventually getting tried because of a breach of OPSEC, which will set a precedent, and remind people that they need to be careful what they post. On a personal side, I consider whatever I post to be eternal- would I be ashamed if my grandchildren saw everything I have ever posted, 60 years down the road?
This officer can be trusted with a weapon, or with ammo, but never both at the same time.

"you'll find that besides the shorter haircuts and adherence to timings, CF members aren't really that different than the rest of Canada" - Dimsum

Offline bridges

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 484
  • Servitium Nulli Secundus
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2012, 15:09:47 »
More menacing, your information is out there where people can compile that information for such purposes as identity theft, or noxious marketing schemes (the actual reason for the IPO, incidentally; the only marketable asset Facebook has is detailed records of your behaviour to develop marketing profiles). Military members should also be aware that massive database files of Facebook postings can and do exist, and can be "mined" by search engine programs to develop PERSEC and OPSEC information by aggregating millions of snippets of information.

Although presumably the same would apply to postings on this site as well.  Maybe not in terms of marketing, but in terms of PERSEC and OPSEC, and the entire thing being subject to the Patriot Act - which, admittedly, I understand very little of.  Fortunately the founding philosophies of the folks running the sites are worlds apart.   

I use Facebook for keeping in touch with people, and with certain causes I care about - that's it.  I look forward to new social media sites ascending, but would be skeptical of any claims that they'll be different.  I'd like to see a non-profit site added to the mix, just for something different.   
"Only a person of liberal mind is entitled to exercise coercion over others in a society of free men."   -General Sir John Winthrop Hackett, GCB, CBE, DSO & Bar, MC

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 19:59:18 »
Well the title of this thread may be precient indeed....

http://moneymorning.com/facebook-stock-is-worth-7-50-a-share-at-best/

Quote
Facebook Stock is Worth $7.50 a Share at Best

June 4, 2012

By Keith Fitz-Gerald, Chief Investment Strategist, Money Morning

 Duh on you if you bought the Facebook IPO.

 Double duh if you're thinking of buying Facebook stock now that it's fallen to $32 a share and lost $17.16 billion off its initial $104 billion valuation.
 
The company is only worth about $7.50 a share. And, no. That's not a typo. There is no missing zero or a placeholder.

That's reality. What is ludicrous is that Morgan Stanley and Facebook executives thought the company merited a $104 billion valuation at 100 times earnings.

As my good friend Barry Ritholtz pointed out recently, both Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) debuted at about 15 times earnings. Today they trade at 13.6 and 18.2 times earnings and 3.75 and 4.9 times sales respectively.
 
As I type, Facebook's market cap is $86.84 billion and its price to sales is ridiculously high at 21.01. I think that's way out of line.

So what should the numbers be?

Try this on for size. If we use Google's price to sales ratio of 4.9 (and I am being generous here for discussion purposes), that equals a total market cap of $20.24 billion or 76.68% lower than where it's trading today.

With 2.74 billion shares outstanding, that's equal to only $7.39-$7.50 per share.

No doubt I'll get the evil eye from the Facebook faithful and Morgan Stanley for saying this, but think about it.

 Revenue is already slowing and the company does not and cannot possibly dominate the mobile markets that are becoming the preferred channel for millions of people.

Worse, startups are already cannibalizing Facebook's user base as concerns over privacy and who likes who mount.

 Companies like General Motors (NYSE: GM) are deciding not to renew their advertising. This is going to hit Facebook to the tune of $10 million a year for the loss of GM alone.

More will undoubtedly head out the door for the same reason, since Facebook friends don't necessarily translate into revenue.

Corporate buyers are beginning to figure out that advertising on Facebook is simply not cost effective versus other media alternatives - gasp - including good old fashioned television and radio advertising, billboards and tradeshows.

Facebook Stock: At the Mercy of the Merely Curious
Many people think this isn't a big deal. They couldn't be more wrong.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2012, 13:26:15 »
Long article which explains the scale and scope of the information Facebook collects on users. Since Facebook has yet to monetize all this information for itself, the possibility exists they will simply bundle it and sell it to all comers. You, of course, have no say on how your information will be used....

http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-story/428150/what-facebook-knows/?a=f
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2012, 12:48:41 »
Once again Facebook simply imposes its wants on their users. The attached article shows how you can undo the default setting and input your own email address back in:

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/06/25/facebook-changes-all-default-email-addresses-to-facebook-com-without-asking/

Quote
Facebook changes default email addresses to @facebook.com without asking
Kevin Smith, Business Insider  Jun 25, 2012 – 3:43 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 25, 2012 4:18 PM ET
 
Facebook has changed users primary email addresses listed in their profiles from the ones they selected to @facebook.com emails.

Way back in 2010 Facebook relaunched its Messages feature to include @facebook.com email addresses for all users. The service never really took off as an email replacement, but it’s still there.

Today, Facebook has changed users primary email addresses listed in their profiles from the ones they selected to @facebook.com emails, as Gizmodo points out.

Here is how to turn off Facebook's creepy new find friends nearby feature

Luckily, it’s pretty easy to fix.

To change your email back do this:

Head to Account Settings by clicking the arrow in the top right hand corner.
You’ll see your Primary email address. Click Edit to change it.
Select the email you originally had or choose a new one.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline bridges

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 484
  • Servitium Nulli Secundus
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2012, 13:43:49 »
Helpful - thanks, Thucydides.   As always, people use FB at their peril.  I'm busy devising/reviving other ways to keep in touch with far-away friends & family, in the event FB gets too obnoxious to handle.  It's almost there now. 
"Only a person of liberal mind is entitled to exercise coercion over others in a society of free men."   -General Sir John Winthrop Hackett, GCB, CBE, DSO & Bar, MC

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2012, 01:58:56 »
Well Facebook certainly has the potential to change the Internet; just not the way anyone expected:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/427972/the-facebook-fallacy/

Quote
The Facebook Fallacy

For all its valuation, the social network is just another ad-supported site. Without an earth-changing idea, it will collapse and take down the Web.

Michael Wolff

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Brian Stauffer
Things Reviewed:

Facebook ads

Facebook not only is on course to go bust but will take the rest of the ad-supported Web with it.

Given its vast cash reserves and the glacial pace of business reckonings, this assertion will sound exaggerated. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

At the heart of the Internet business is one of the great business fallacies of our time: that the Web, with all its targeting abilities, can be a more efficient, and hence more profitable, advertising medium than traditional media. Facebook, with its 900 million users, its valuation of around $60 billion (as of early June), and a business derived primarily from fairly traditional online advertising, is now at the heart of the heart of this fallacy.

The daily and stubborn reality for everybody building businesses on the strength of Web advertising is that the value of digital ads decreases every quarter, a consequence of their simultaneous ineffectiveness and efficiency. The nature of people's behavior on the Web and of how they interact with advertising, as well as the character of those ads themselves and their inability to command attention, has meant a marked decline in advertising's impact.
Advertisement

At the same time, network technology allows advertisers to more precisely locate and assemble audiences outside of branded channels. Instead of having to go to CNN for your audience, a generic CNN-like audience can be assembled outside CNN's walls and without the CNN-brand markup. This has resulted in the now famous and cruelly accurate formulation that $10 of offline advertising becomes $1 online.

I don't know anyone in the ad-­supported Web business who isn't engaged in a relentless, demoralizing, no-exit operation to realign costs with falling per-user revenues, or who isn't manically inflating traffic to compensate for ever-lower per-user value.

Facebook has convinced large numbers of otherwise intelligent people that the magic of the medium will reinvent advertising in a heretofore unimaginably profitable way, or that the company will create something new that isn't advertising, which will produce even more wonderful profits. But because its stock has been trading at about 40 times its expected earnings for the next year, these innovations will have to be something like alchemy to make the company worth its sticker price. For comparison, Google has been trading at a forward P/E ratio of around 11. (To gauge how much faith investors have that Google, Facebook, and other Web companies will extract value from their users, see Graphiti, on page 31.)

Facebook currently derives 82 percent of its revenue from advertising. Most of that is the desultory, ticky-tacky display advertising that litters the right side of people's Facebook profiles. Some is a kind of social marketing: a user chooses to "like" a product, which is supposed to further social relationships with companies. The social network sells its ads by valuing various combinations of the cost of a thousand ad impressions (or CPM) and the cost of a click (CPC). Both forms of ads are more or less coarsely targeted to users on the basis of information they've volunteered to provide to Facebook and the sharing or "liking" of media within Facebook's universe. General Motors recently announced it would no longer buy any kind of Facebook ad.

Facebook's answer to its critics is: Pay no attention to the carping. Sure, grunt-like advertising produces the overwhelming portion of our $4 billion in revenues, and yes, on a per-user basis, these revenues are in decline. But this stuff is really not what we have in mind. Just wait.

It's quite a juxtaposition of realities. On the one hand, Facebook is under the same relentless downward pressure as other Web-based media. The company's revenue amounts to a pitiful $5 per customer per year, which puts it ahead of the Huffington Post but somewhat behind the New York Times' digital business. (Here's the heartbreaking truth about the difference between new media and old: even in the New York Times' declining traditional business, a subscriber is still worth more than $1,000 a year.) Facebook's business grows only on the unsustainable basis that it can add new customers at a faster rate than the price of advertising declines. It is peddling as fast as it can. And the present scenario gets much worse as people increasingly interact with the social service on mobile devices, because on a small screen it is vastly harder to sell ads and monetize users.

On the other hand, Facebook is, everyone has come to agree, profoundly different from the Web. First of all, it exerts a new level of hegemonic control over users' experiences. And it has its vast scale: 900 million, soon a billion, eventually two billion people. (One of the problems with the logic of constant growth at this scale and speed is that eventually Facebook will run out of humans with computers or smart phones.) And then it is social. Facebook has, in some yet-to-be-defined way, redefined something. Relationships? Media? Communications? Communities? Something big, anyway.

    The sweeping, basic, transformative, and simple way to connect buyer to seller and get out of the way eludes Facebook. It has to sell its audience like every humper on Madison Avenue.

The subtext—an overt subtext—of the popular account of Facebook is that the network has a proprietary claim to and special insight into social behavior. For enterprises and advertising agencies, it is therefore the bridge to new modes of human connection. Expressed so baldly, this account is hardly different from what was claimed for the companies most aggressively boosted during the dot-com boom. But there is, in fact, one company that created and harnessed a transformation in behavior and business: Google. Facebook could be, or in many people's eyes should be, something similar. Lost in such analysis is the failure to describe the application that will drive revenues.

Google is an incredibly efficient system for placing ads. In a disintermediated advertising market, the company has turned itself into the last and ultimate middleman. On its own site, it controls the space where a buyer searches for a thing and where a seller hawks that thing (AdWords, its keywords advertising network). Google is also the cheapest, most efficient way to place ads anywhere else on the Web (through the AdSense network). It's not a media company in any traditional sense; it's a facilitator. It can eliminate the whole laborious, numbing process of selling advertising space: if a marketer wants to place an ad (that is, if it is already convinced it must advertise), the company calls Mr. Google.

And that's Facebook's hope, too: it wants to be a facilitator, the inevitable conduit at the center of the world's commerce.

Facebook has the scale, the platform, and the brand to be the new Google. It lacks only the big idea. Right now, it doesn't actually know how to embed its usefulness into world commerce (or even, really, what its usefulness is).

But Google didn't have the big idea at its founding, either. The search engine borrowed the concept of AdWords from Yahoo's Overture network (a lawsuit for patent infringement and a settlement followed). Now Google has all the money in the world to buy or license the ideas that could make its platform and brand pay off.

What might Facebook's big idea look like? Well, it does have all this data. The company knows so much about so many people that its executives are sure the knowledge must have value (see this month's cover story, "What Facebook Knows," on page 42).

If you're inside the Facebook galaxy—a constellation that includes an ever-­expanding cloud of associated ventures—there is endless chatter about a near-utopian new medium for marketing. Round and round goes the conversation: "If we just ... if only ... when we will ..." If, for instance, frequent-flier programs and travel destinations actually knew when you were thinking about planning a trip ... If a marketer could identify the person who has the most influence on you ... If an advertiser could introduce you to someone who would relay the advertising message ... Get it? No ads, just friends! My God!

But so far the sweeping, basic, transformative, and simple way to connect buyer to seller and get out of the way eludes Facebook.

So the social network is left in the same position as all other media companies. Instead of being inevitable and unavoidable, it has to sell its audience like every humper on Madison Avenue.

But that's what Facebook is doing: selling individual ads. If you consider only its revenue, it's an ad-sales business, not a technology company. To meet expectations—the expectations that took it public at $100 billion—it has to sell at near hyperspeed.

The growth of its user base and its ever-swelling page views mean an almost infinite inventory to sell. But the expanding supply, together with equivocal demand, results in ever-lowering prices. The math is sickeningly inevitable. Absent that earthshaking idea, Facebook will look forward to slowing or declining growth in a tapped-out market, and ever-falling ad rates, both on the Web and (especially) in mobile applications. Facebook isn't Google; it's Yahoo or AOL.

Oh, yes ... in its Herculean efforts to maintain its overall growth, Facebook will force the rest of the ad-driven Web to lower its prices, too. The low-level panic the owners of every mass-traffic website feel about the ever-downward movement of their CPM is turning to dread. Last quarter, some big sites observed as much as a 25 percent decrease, following Facebook's own attempt to book more revenue.

You see where this is going. As Facebook gluts an already glutted market, the fallacy of the Web as a profitable ad medium will become hard to ignore. The crash will come. And Facebook—that putative transformer of worlds, which is, in reality, only an ad-driven site—will fall with everybody else.

Michael Wolff writes a column on media for the Guardian; is a contributing editor to Vanity Fair; founded Newser; and was, until October of last year, the editor of AdWeek.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline KanD

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2012, 20:51:16 »
Facebook invests in Asia Pacific Gateway underwater internet cable
Article link

Quote
Facebook invests in Asia Pacific Gateway underwater internet cable
5 July 2012

Facebook has invested in a 10,000km (6,214 mile) Asian undersea cable project. The Asia Pacific Gateway (APG) is designed to improve internet speeds for citizens and businesses in the region. The cable will run directly from Malaysia to South Korea and Japan, with links branching off to other countries. Facebook said the move would support efforts to boost membership in what was already one of its fastest growing markets.
"Our investment in this cable will help support our growth in South Asia, making it possible for us to provide a better user experience for a greater number of Facebook users in countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Singapore," a spokesman said. He declined to reveal how much money the firm was putting into scheme, saying only that a consortium of firms had invested $450m (£280m) in total.

Faster links
The project to construct and maintain APG is funded by a group that includes two large Chinese internet service providers, China Telecom and China Unicom. The fibre-optic cable will help the countries send and receive data to North America faster, according to consortium leader Time Dotcom. "This lowers our dependencies on Singapore as the main gateway for internet traffic," said its chief executive Saiful Husni. "We can now channel high volumes of this traffic on our network with the lowest latency [access time], directly to the US." Internet traffic can be slowed by the number of "hops" traffic has to make as it traverses different stretches of cables, and as it passes through different landing stations.

Eyeing Asia
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Facebook's growth in the US had shown signs of "slowing sharply", putting further pressure on its share price. But the news was offset by a later Nielsen study suggesting the network was enjoying rapid growth in Asia. It indicated that the number of Japan-based visitors to the site using PCs had more than doubled during the year to May, totalling 17.2 million people that month. It also suggested the firm was enjoying rapid growth in South Korea, adding there was scope for even bigger gains. However, the Tech In Asia blog noted that Facebook's number of active users remains behind those of Mixi in Japan and Cyworld in South Korea - both domestic social networks that have the advantage of using locally based servers aiding download speeds. One telecoms analyst told the BBC Facebook should also benefit elsewhere. "India and the Philippines are both really heavy users of Facebook, and connectivity is patchy in and out of the countries," said Dean Bubley, from Disruptive Analysis. Facebook is not the first major US internet company to invest in internet infrastructure. Google announced in 2008 that it would invest in a $300m undersea cabling system called Unity between Asia and the US.

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2012, 22:28:03 »
Looks like Nemo will soon have his own Facebook Page. ;D
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline BadgerTrapper

  • "Ave, Imperator, morituri te salutant"
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 7,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 98
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2012, 07:09:33 »
In regards to the Facebook changing Email thing, they did it to me. Just figured it out after reading Thucydides article. Any one else receive the change?

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2012, 20:37:06 »
Since so much of our lives is becoming digitized (despite the obvious benefits clay tablets  ;)), it is well worth thinking about how to harden our digital assets. This service offers one way (local backups, UPS systems to allow your home PC a graceful shut down, Internet anonymizers and using a "clean" computer dedicated to tasks like banking and used for no other purpose are others). Interesting concept:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/backupify_yes_you_should_back_up_your_gmail_facebook_and_twitter_accounts_here_s_how_to_do_it_.single.html

Quote
You Should Back Up Your Gmail, Facebook, and Twitter Accounts
Here’s how.

By Farhad Manjoo|Posted Friday, Aug. 17, 2012, at 6:08 PM ET

Even though companies such as Google and Twitter save your data on multiple machines, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s backed up.

When I first heard of Backupify a few years ago, I thought the service sounded unnecessary at best. The company promises to back up the data you’ve stored on various online services, scooping up all your mail and contacts from Gmail, your calendar entries from Google Calendar, plus everything you’ve got on Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Flickr, and LinkedIn.

I have long been an advocate of frequent backups, but that term is usually reserved for stuff you’ve got stored on your own computer. A backup creates an extra copy, either on an external drive or online, so that when your machine bites the dust, you won’t be hosed. But Gmail isn’t stored on your own computer (you might have downloaded your mail to your desktop, but unless you’ve explicitly deleted your messages from Google’s servers, they’re still online). And Google is very good at backing things up. Like other firms that store data in the cloud, Google keeps many copies of your stuff on thousands of computers across the world. This redundancy is one of the cloud’s biggest selling points. Even if you keep your photos on three different hard drives in your house, they’re still vulnerable. (What if you’re burglarized?) But if one of Google’s data centers gets hit by a meteorite, your data will always be secure in some other center somewhere else.

That’s why Backupify sounded fishy—it seems to do what cloud services already do. It doesn’t help that the firm wants you to pay for the service, too. The company offers a free plan with 1 GB of storage, but if you want to back up even more of your cloud data, Backupify asks for $5 a month for 10 GB of storage or $20 for 50 GB. Remember that the services you’re backing up—Gmail and the rest—are free. So Backupify is asking you to open up your wallet to back up an already backed up free thing. Do they think you were born yesterday?

But in the last few weeks, I’ve seen the light. I now consider Backupify an essential part of keeping my digital life secure. In fact, signing up for its free plan is as important as choosing strong passwords and regularly backing up your local data. And, for my own data, I’m going to go even further. I’ve decided to pay for Backupify’s monthly plan to get enough space to secure all of the stuff I have in the cloud.

Why did I suddenly change my mind about Backupify? After a string of high-profile cloud mishaps, I now realize something important about how Google and other companies store people’s data. Even though the search company saves my email on multiple machines, that doesn’t really mean it’s backed up. Google’s redundancy does protect my stuff from natural disasters or mechanical failure, but it doesn’t do anything to secure my data from its worst enemy—me and other devious human beings pretending to be me.

Backupify, on the other hand, is your savior in the event of human error. If you subscribe to the service, your stuff isn’t really ever gone for good—not when you lose your data because you’ve been hacked, not when you forget your password, not because the cloud service kicked you out, and not because you just accidentally pressed delete.

Rob May, Backupify’s co-founder and CEO, says that he got the plan for the firm in 2008 when he was talking to friends about startup ideas. Someone told him, “Hey, you should build a Flickr backup tool.” May says his first reaction was like mine: “I thought it was a dumb idea.” But the more he thought about the idea, the more sensible it became. Lots of friends told him they were losing data in the cloud, either accidentally or through some attack. And once the data was gone, it was gone.

This gets to the fundamental paradox of the cloud: The advantage of storing your data online is that it’s available everywhere, all the time, to you or anyone with proper credentials. The problem with storing your data in the cloud is that it’s available everywhere, all the time, to you or anyone with proper credentials. In the Atlantic last year, James Fallows described the devastation his wife, Deb, suffered after someone got into her Gmail account and deleted everything:

Six years’ worth of correspondence and everything that went with it were gone. All the notes, interviews, recollections, and attached photos from our years of traveling through China. All the correspondence with and about her father in the last years of his life. The planning for our sons’ weddings; the exchanges she’d had with subjects, editors, and readers of her recent book; the accounting information for her projects; the travel arrangements and appointments she had for tomorrow and next week and next month; much of the incidental-expense data for the income-tax return I was about to file—all of this had been erased.

A few weeks ago, tech journalist Mat Honan suffered a similar attack. And those are just the ones you hear about—a Google representative told Fallows that there are thousands of attacks against Google accounts every day.

But you don’t need to be a victim of a hacker to lose stuff in the cloud. In fact, according to a 2007 study by a trade organization called the IT Policy Compliance Group, malicious attacks cause only a fraction of online data losses. By far the largest cause is human error—you accidentally delete an important document in Google Docs, say. It doesn’t even have to be your error: Earlier this month, in a widely circulated Gizmodo piece that carried the headline “Why the Cloud Sucks,” Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak wrote that after he upgraded to the latest version of the Mac OS, he noticed that one of his primary Google calendars suddenly disappeared. At first, he had no idea how it had happened—his other data was intact, so it didn’t look like a hack. Then, he got a notice from the makers of BusyCal, a popular calendar app for the Mac, telling him about an incompatibility with the new version of the Mac OS. The message had come too late: BusyCal, which Wozniak had set up to sync with Google, had deleted one of his calendars.

Backupify solves all these problems with a simple, brilliant innovation: It has no delete function. After you sign up to the service and authorize it to connect to your cloud accounts, Backupify regularly downloads and saves every item you have online—your messages, calendar appointments, contacts, and on and on. But if you delete something from your cloud account, Backupify does not mirror that action on its own servers. So if you, a hacker, or a third-party app trashes your account, it will remain intact at Backupify. Indeed, even if a hacker somehow gets into your Backupify account, he still wouldn’t be able to delete your data. The company’s Web interface has no delete button. The only way to delete your data from Backupify is to call up the company and send its staff a copy of your driver’s license and other credentials to prove that you are who you say you are.

And that gets to why cloud services can’t protect your data the way Backupify does. For privacy reasons, Google and Facebook have to offer customers a delete button that actually deletes your data. (In fact, Facebook has struggled to make delete actually work; in the past, some Facebook photos could still be accessed years after they’d supposedly been deleted. This week Facebook announced that when you delete a photo, it gets permanently removed from Facebook’s servers within 30 days.) Backupify can make deletion difficult only because it’s a third-party service dedicated to backup.

Backupify is about four years old, and in that time it has managed to gain thousands of paying customers, most of them businesses that are looking to protect their Google data. But the firm only has about 200,000 nonbusiness users, which sounds like too few to me. May says that on average, Backupify users restore—that is, undelete—about 3.38 items every year. In practice, that means that a lot of people aren’t restoring anything, and some people are restoring their entire accounts. (You can restore your stuff to your original cloud account, or you can download your data to your hard drive.)

May says that the number of undeletes proves how useful Backupify can be. “It shows you that this is a real problem,” he says. “It happens more than people think. It’s just not publicized very often.” Well, here you go: Let me publicize the heck out of it. You’re keeping all your precious data in the cloud, and it’s all just one accidental or malicious deletion away from oblivion. Signing up for Backupify is free, and it takes about two minutes to do so. What are you waiting for?
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2012, 00:08:37 »
I love the Oatmeal. The "what happens when Microsoft buys SKYPE and Facebook integrates it" cost me a keyboard....

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/state_web_summer
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Stevenhh

  • Guest
  • *
  • 1,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2012, 03:25:26 »
Porn Machine?
I cracked up at that one.
Steven H.

Offline bridges

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 484
  • Servitium Nulli Secundus
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2012, 14:54:32 »
I love the Oatmeal. The "what happens when Microsoft buys SKYPE and Facebook integrates it" cost me a keyboard....

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/state_web_summer

Some good stuff there!  I could have done without the idea of the "best" of Pauly Shore, though.   

Re. Backupify, I can't decide if it's a brilliant idea, or laughable illustration of how our society has gone nuts evolved.  Maybe both.  Sounds worth checking into, either way.   

As an aside, I wish it didn't look like it rhymes with "stupify". 
"Only a person of liberal mind is entitled to exercise coercion over others in a society of free men."   -General Sir John Winthrop Hackett, GCB, CBE, DSO & Bar, MC

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,206
  • Freespeecher
Re: After Facebook
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2012, 06:59:13 »
Financially, mac and cheese outdoes Facebook. Not sure if this heralds the end of time or not....

http://www.wired.com/business/2012/09/annies-mac-n-cheese-facebook/

Quote
Why Mac ‘n’ Cheese Is a Smarter Investment Than Facebook

    By Marcus Wohlsen
    Email Author
    09.18.12 6:30 AM

In the hype tsunami prior to Facebook’s May IPO, I doubt anyone wrote these words: “Instead of social media, you should invest in macaroni and cheese.” As it turns out, that’s exactly what you should have done.

The day Facebook (FB) went public, its shares closed at $38.23, just pennies above the initial asking price of $38. That same day, shares of organic mac ‘n’ cheese maker Annie’s (BNNY) closed at just a little less than that at $36.39. If you’d bought Annie’s that day, your shares would be up by nearly one-third right now. Facebook shares, meanwhile, are down more than 40 percent.

You’d be even better off if you’d gotten in on the ground floor of the Annie’s IPO in March, when shares were priced at $19. You would have nearly doubled your money on that first day of trading alone. In what kind of world does a company that makes bunny-shaped pasta go public and get a dotcom-style pop, while a social media juggernaut that has fundamentally changed the way humans communicate turns into one of the great stock market stinkers?

The success of the Annie’s IPO, and the failure to date of Facebook’s, could be just a flukey coincidence. After all, one sells eyeballs, the other kids’ food. But the story of Annie’s’ rise to success doesn’t read that differently than that of an internet startup.

Annie’s is named after Annie Withey, who started the company with her then-husband Andrew Martin in a fit of what you’d now call serial entrepreneurship. In the mid-’80s, Martin had helped invent a new kind of resealable bag for snack food. The bag needed a product to show it off, so Annie started experimenting in her kitchen and came up with Smartfood, the now ubiquitous white cheddar-flavored popcorn in the black bag. The resealable bag didn’t take off, but the popcorn did: Frito-Lay bought Smartfood from the pair for a reported $15 million. Fishing around for something to do next, the two stuck to what they knew: packaging and white cheddar. Annie’s Shells and White Cheddar, the mac ‘n’ cheese in the purple box with the bunny, came out in 1989 and helped pioneer a product niche that more than two decades later has become a big business: healthy convenience food.

Like most scrappy internet startups, the pair did nearly all the work themselves, from writing the homey box copy to delivering cases to regional grocery stores in and around Boston. (Health-food store habitués may be surprised to know that they’ve never had Annie’s all to themselves; mainstream grocery stores have sold their products since the beginning.) Unlike most internet startups, however, they started small and stayed small for a long time.

When current Annie’s CEO John Foraker joined the company in 1999 at the peak of the dot-com boom, he says the company had six or seven employees and about $7 million in annual revenue. Sales had doubled by 2002, when private equity firm Solera Capital stepped in with a reported $81 million investment that made it the majority shareholder.

With big money behind Annie’s, Foraker says the company developed a “performance-oriented culture” focused on meeting quarterly and annual goals. That could have killed the personality that Annie had instilled in her namesake company, but Foraker says Solera understood that shooting for financial goals didn’t mean sacrificing what he saw as the company’s vision or its heritage. “It wasn’t just a pasta company,” he says. “I viewed it as a brand that stood for a lot of important things.”

Solera didn’t seek a quick exit, which in the packaged foods industry almost always means selling to one of the big players, the way Withey sold Smartfood to Frito-Lay. As a result, Annie’s had time to grow organically (pun intended). And just as the company began adding more organic products to its lineup, the mainstreaming of the organic movement was gaining momentum.

With 125 products, from organic BBQ sauce and gluten-free mac ‘n’ cheese to uncured pepperoni frozen pizza and vegan pretzel bunnies, Annie’s went public just as it was hitting what Foraker describes as the sweet spot of its growth curve. The market for convenience foods with ingredients that sound like they originated in nature and not a lab, was moving far beyond the boundaries of Boston and Berkeley, California where the company is now based, along a trajectory from co-op to Whole Foods to Walmart. But Foraker says the majority of grocery stores that carry Annie’s products still shelve them off to the side in a “natural foods” section. Foraker’s job now is to convince the rest of those retailers that Annie’s can go head to head with Kraft, that its products aren’t just riding a fad but represent a basic shift in attitude toward eating. “It’s really hard to see the broad trend of people wanting to eat healthier changing,” Foraker says.

Wall Street mostly agrees. Analysts polled by Thomson/First Call advise to either hold on to Annie’s shares or buy more. William Blair and Co. analyst Jon Andersen says the U.S. natural and organic food market is growing by 8 percent annually, much faster than conventional packaged food, and should hit $52 billion by next year.

Andersen says in a note to investors that Annie’s is not only a top seller in that market but “has proven crossover appeal” that should grow considerably with its recent launch of frozen pizzas. “We believe that Annie’s has a compelling long-term growth opportunity,” he says.

Not that Annie’s is without its detractors. Some investors worry that Annie’s’ highly visible post-IPO success will spur other companies to slap “organic” on a box of mac ‘n’ cheese and take a big bite out of Annie’s’ market. If that happens, it will be interesting to see how well Annie’s can keep its commitment to its core values while under pressure from shareholders — a dilemma Facebook knows well.

For now, Annie’s seems to be perfectly balancing its responsibilities to Wall Street, while upholding all the things you might expect of a company with an enormous bunny emblazoned on the side of its Berkeley headquarters. An earnest vibe radiates throughout the low-slung building, which houses most of the company’s 100 employees. The walls are adorned with slogans like “Create a garden of goodness” and “Share the sunshine,” while conference rooms are decorated with murals of hippie goddesses and flowers. And, of course, bunnies. Even the low-flow toilets advertise how much water they save compared to the conventional variety. Frankly, it’s exactly the kind of business you’d expect to find in Berkeley.

But that could in a way be a key to Annie’s success in the market. Berkeley is a town where people are genuinely committed to their causes, but also aren’t afraid to make money (as in the ritzier parts of Silicon Valley, the bursting of the real estate bubble was barely felt in Berkeley). Compared to Facebook, Annie’s’ value proposition is plain and simple, just like what it sells, but the company also apparently knows how to sell it. Facebook may be a more ambitious and more valuable company at the moment, but like many internet companies, its shares rise and fall based on how confident investors feel it really has anything to sell. Annie’s makes a thing you hold in your hand and put in your belly. As fears of another tech bubble persist, mac ‘n’ cheese makes for some real stock market comfort food.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.