Microsoft

LinkedIn faces awkward choices in China

FOREIGN INTERNET firms have a rough time in China. To stop the spread of ideas it deems dangerous, the Communist Party blocked YouTube’s video-sharing site, Facebook’s social network and Twitter’s microblog in 2009. A year later Google abruptly shut its Chinese search engine after a dispute with censors. Chinese who want to access Western social…

FOREIGN INTERNET firms have a rough time in China. To stop the spread of ideas it deems dangerous, the Communist Party blocked YouTube’s video-sharing site, Facebook’s social network and Twitter’s microblog in 2009. A year later Google abruptly shut its Chinese search engine after a dispute with censors. Chinese who want to access Western social media must do so via virtual private networks, which is finicky and can be illegal.
One exception to this heavy-handed rule is LinkedIn. China’s government tolerates the professional network, perhaps because most people use it to hunt for jobs and business contacts, not talk about democracy. The number of LinkedIn’s Chinese users has grown rapidly since Microsoft purchased it in 2016, to 53m. They make up around 7% of LinkedIn’s global total, up from 1.4% in 2014. Microsoft does not disclose how much China contributes to LinkedIn’s revenues, which reached $8bn in 2020. Still, the software giant can tout it as a rare Western social-networking win in a market of nearly 1bn netizens.

But operating in a dictatorship presents awkward choices for a platform designed for the exchange of ideas, as well as business cards. To comply with China’s laws, LinkedIn must limit what users can post. Since March, when China’s cyberspace regulator criticised its lax controls, it seems to have…
Read More

Be the first to write a comment.

Leave a Reply

Microsoft

IBM’s Fall From World Dominance

Steven Cherry Hi, this is Steven Cherry for IEEE Spectrum’s podcast, Fixing the Future. IBM is a remarkable company, known for many things—the tabulating machines that calculated the 1890 U.S. Census, the mainframe computer, legitimizing the person computer, and developing the software that beat the best in the world at chess and then Jeopardy. The…

Steven Cherry Hi, this is Steven Cherry for IEEE Spectrum’s podcast, Fixing the Future.

IBM is a remarkable company, known for many things—the tabulating machines that calculated the 1890 U.S. Census, the mainframe computer, legitimizing the person computer, and developing the software that beat the best in the world at chess and then Jeopardy.

The company is, though, even more remarkable for the businesses it departed—often while they were still highly profitable—and pivoting to new ones before their profitability was obvious or assured.

The pivot people are most familiar with is the one into the PC market in the 1980s and then out of it in the 2000s. In fact, August 2020 marks the 40th anniversary of the introduction of the IBM PC. Joining me to talk about it—and IBM’s other pivots, past and future—is a person uniquely qualified to do so.

James Cortada is both a Ph.D. historian and a 38-year veteran of IBM. He’s currently a senior research fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Charles Babbage Institute, where he specializes in the history of technology. He was therefore perfectly positioned to be the author of the definitive corporate history of the company he used to work for, in a book entitled IBM: The Rise and Fall and Reinvention of a Global Icon, which was published in 2019 by MIT Press.

Cortada is also a contributor to IEEE Spectrum, most recently of an article this month entitled “How the IBM PC Won, Then Lost, the Personal Computer Market,” and in that sense I’m delighted to call him a colleague. He joins us by Skype.

Jim, welcome to the podcast.

James Cortada Delighted to be here.

Steven Cherry Jim, IBM wasn’t the first to personal computers. The first Apple computer was in 1976 and by 1981 the Apple II was firmly leading the market. Commodore, Tandy/RadioShack, and Osborne also had popular computers. More importantly, there was already an operating system, Digital Research’s CPM, that anchored the market and quite a bit of software was available for every computer that could run it: WordStar VisiCalc, Basic…. There were C and Pascal compilers. There were assemblers.

Because IBM was late to the PC market, it did two things that turned out to contribute mightily to its success. [The PC] was developed as a kind of skunkworks project that reported directly to the CEO of the company. And contrary to its corporate culture, it used off-the-shelf parts and software that the company didn’t write. Just how revolutionary was that for IBM?

James Cortada I cannot think of another time before then when IBM had done that. Prior to that time, they the bought a company that had something, a part or software or technology, or invented itself in its own research laboratories, which are always attached to company manufacturing facilities so they can make it manufacturable. So this is a complete departure. The reason it was done is that the IBM process for developing new equipment would take too long to get a PC out into the marketplace, and they needed to move quickly once that decision had been made and they could not do it with the existing process. So they needed a skunkworks. And that’s what Frank Cary, the chairman of the board, who ran the company, decided to do.

Steven Cherry Jim, those two factors—the skunkworks aspect and the off-the-shelf construction—also led to the downfall of IBM and the PC market. Eventually, the PC business got folded into the regular chain of command and business structures. And by using Microsoft’s operating system and Intel’s chips, without exclusive rights to them, the PC market came to be controlled by those two companies and it became a commodity business.

James Cortada It became a commodity business not only because of the chips and the operating system, but because other companies were able to put it all together at a lower cost than IBM. Once the PC business in IBM got folded into the main corporate structure, its costs of operating went up. So it’s nearly impossible to get the cost of manufacturing and sales down to a competitive level. And the marketplace also began to compete based on price. Because everybody had good machines.

Steven Cherry Selling businesses off when they became commodities is part of a pattern. It happened as well in 2002 when IBM sold its disk drive business to Hitachi at that time. This one unit was contributing to the company something like a third of its annual profits.

James Cortada The interesting thing about DASD [direct-access storage device] was IBM invented the disk drives in the mid-1950s and kept innovating that technology so fast that its product costs and what it could sell for remained very competitive for a very long time. But eventually, like everything else, it became a commodity, especially when computer chips dropped and cost to nothing. And so you could have a vast quantity of storage and minimal costs. Just look at your cell phone. So IBM decided that it’s better off with high profit items and not as well off with low profit items, even if it was still making a profit. So they decided to get out of that business and take the money that they would have otherwise spent on it on more profitable activities.

Steven Cherry US $2.6 billion from Lenovo for the PC business, $2 billion from Hitachi, with some downstream money as well. This is in sharp contrast to, say, Kodak, which when it finally sold off its film business in twenty thirteen, it was part of a bankruptcy reorganization. Similarly, GE sold off GE Capital for $26 billion after the 2008 finance and banking collapse, which is a far cry from a decade earlier, when it was worth ten times that.

James Cortada Timing is everything. What I can say about the PC and the DASD was the fact that they didn’t milk it for the very last dollar when they saw the handwriting on the wall. They knew from prior experience that you sell off that piece of the business before it’s not worth anything. And sometimes you have less than six months or a year in this industry to do that. But IBM sold these businesses off before it was too late, and that’s why it was able to gain a nice return.

The other thing that everybody overlooks, particularly with the PC business, is that it was a beautiful negotiation because it allowed IBM to enter the Chinese market in a way that China would have liked through an existing local company that was already trusted, Lenovo, and that knew how to get around and do stuff in China. So in addition to the cash transactions and transfer of people and ICAP, IBM gained access to a huge market.

Steven Cherry We’re speaking with historian Jim Cortada. When we come back, I’ll ask him to walk us through some of IBM’s most difficult moments, and to speculate about its uncertain future.

Fixing the Future is supported by COMSOL, the makers of COMSOL Multiphysics simulation software. Companies like the Manufacturing Technology Centre are revolutionizing the designs of additive manufactured parts by first building simulation apps from COMSOL models, allowing them to share their analyses with different teams and explore new manufacturing opportunities with their own customers. Learn more about simulation apps and find this and other case studies at comsol.com/blog/apps.

We’re back with my guest Jim Cortada, a senior research fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Charles Babbage Institute and author of a comprehensive corporate history of IBM.

Jim, I mentioned some of IBM’s big pivots—from tabulators to computers, from mainframes to PCs and servers, from hardware to services and consulting. In each case, the future of the entire company was at stake.

James Cortada That’s absolutely correct. When you leave—in a technology company—from one platform to another, one model business model to another, it’s very risky. Some people can do it well, others can’t. And IBM’s case, for example, when it got out of the tabulating business in the nineteen fifties, it had been in that business for a half century. And it owned it. Yet computers were clearly going to be displacing tabulating equipment. So IBM had to get it in the computer business, had to learn the technology had spent 10 years prior to that learning about the technology and participating in preliminary projects.

So when it started the transition to computers, it already knew a great deal about the subject as a question of timing, when to enter, how fast, what kind of configurations of equipment and all the basic blocking and tackling. It did that when they got into the services business in the 1980s and 1990s. Again, a very similar thing. You go from trying to sell a machines and software to selling pocking our brains, if you will, at X number of dollars per hour of consulting. Yet at the same time holding on to hardware and software sales as desirable. That, again, was a fundamental structural difference. But that had a decade of experience experimenting and learning. And even then it took in each case a decade to make the move.

Steven Cherry People don’t realize how risky these transitions are. Microsoft, for example, was late to the Internet and the Web and it almost killed the company. And then instead of learning from that experience, they were even later to the transition to mobile platforms, to cell phones and tablets.

James Cortada That’s correct. And all these companies periodically take a few years to learn how to do it. Well, first, they have to learn that they have to do it and accept it, because there are a lot of food fights within the company about whether we should go or not go. They all go through this. Then they have to learn how to do it and then they’ve got to go do it. And then convince everybody they did it. That’s Microsoft, that’s IBM. That’s all of them. Kodak failed.

Steven Cherry Jim, you were at IBM for one of these major transitions, which you describe as a corporate near-death experience. What was it like within the company to live and work through such a tumultuous period?

James Cortada Hah, you didn’t know, for example, or whether you’re going to get laid off. You didn’t know how to develop your career … should you continue along a traditional line that you had been in or start in another? And it was another … like in consulting—and I jumped into the consulting—I bet the consulting was going to grow. You had to learn a whole new profession.

So a lot of the things that you knew before did not necessarily play out. There was a lot of angst in the company about how do we do this, how do we take care of our customers, but also how do we take care of our profits and our revenue streams? Very delicate, very difficult to do. A lot of new people were brought in who did not understand IBM’s culture, and they had to learn how to deal with IBM. But at the same time, we had to figure out how to work with those folks. So they came from PWC, Arthur Andersen, on and on and on—all the all the majors. And that was very difficult to do. A lot of people didn’t make it.

Steven Cherry You were fortunate enough to spend some hours with Thomas Watson Jr. and talk with him about the initial transition from tabulators to computers. And of course, he wrote about that himself. How would you compare these two transitions—into computers on the one hand and away from computer hardware on the other?

James Cortada I would say the transition from tabulators to computers was harder, more radical. It basically required an entirely new set of technology. It required a whole new set of employees and a different business model because the revenue streams, the profit streams and so on were fundamentally different. The only thing that didn’t change was culture and the values of the company because they applied in both cases. In the case of the consulting business, the services business, IBM kept holding on to hardware, software and added consulting,

Steven Cherry IBM seemed like it was making another pivot with artificial intelligence. After winning a chess in jeopardy, it created a new division, Watson, and gave it enormous resources, especially in personnel and in marketing, even though it was pretty early to this market. It doesn’t seem like it could keep up with its competitors.

James Cortada I would argue that the company was slow to get into both cloud computing and artificial intelligence as both things were going on at the same time. And it’s the Jeopardy phenomenon you refer to. It was slow to both. And so now IBM is in a catch-up mode, particularly on the cloud side. But it has so much horsepower, so much talent on the artificial intelligence that a little bit of a drag on coming into the market has allowed it to shape a whole series of new product offerings that the others haven’t come up with, specifically industry-specific uses of artificial intelligence that played into IBM’s strength.

Steven Cherry Yeah, it is interesting to speculate, though, if the equivalent of Amazon Web services had been developed at IBM first, what would Amazon look like today and what would IBM look like?

James Cortada You know, it’s interesting because while I was at IBM, we had conversations about that. It wasn’t clear at the time how to do that because the Amazon formula was, “we’ll give cloud to anybody who wants it.” And we knew from prior experience that just being generic like that wasn’t going to work because your mother and my mother could show up and say, I want cloud computing. IBM can’t deal with small enterprises when it comes to a technology like that. It has to be for General Motors, Ford, and so on. That’s where its core strength is. So it wasn’t clear in the beginning whether that would work. Secondly, there was a lot of concern about, would people move into the cloud? Meaning that we would lose a lot of hardware, install-hardware sales, software sales. So the trade off there and nobody could quite figure out either in the industry or within IBM, but the specific cost could be as clearly as management would like. So it was fuzzy. So people kind of drag your feet a little bit. I’ll be honest,

Steven Cherry Jim, every company involved in information processing is a potential target of cyberattacks, cyberterrorism, even cyberwar. In a way, the firms we can’t afford to lose make up almost a litmus test of the most important companies. If we were to list them ourselves, it would surely include Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple. Years ago, IBM would be at the top of that list. Would IBM still be on the list today?

James Cortada I believe it would be because a lot of the work that it does is behind the scenes in conference rooms and data centers that the public doesn’t see. You could go to the U.S. Department of Defense and have them put together a list and they would have on that list companies that you and I haven’t heard of. But when you ask them, well, what do they do? “Oh, yes, they definitely have to be on the list.”

IBM would be on the list because they do so much work to support the economic national infrastructure, not only in the United States, but of many, many countries. So it’s more than just the US plus also obviously its work with the military and NSA and all the other agencies. So, yeah, it would make the list. Remember IBM’s number one customer—largest customer for over a century—was the federal government, the U.S. federal government. And you and I will never know all the pieces of the business in there.

Steven Cherry I mentioned earlier GE; it was a Dow Jones company every decade of the 20th century—no other company can claim that. Yet if GE survives at all today, it will be as a much smaller firm with a much narrower mission. IBM as well keeps shrinking while its competitors are growing. In the book you note that over its long, illustrious history, IBM has generated over a trillion dollars in revenue. But that’s almost exactly the same revenue as Google—now Alphabet—in the mere 19 years from 2002 to 2020.

James Cortada Yes, but don’t judge companies simply by their revenue size. Judge them by the quality of the revenue—that is, profit. Who’s spending the money with them? IBM will be a smaller company, there’s no question about it. That doesn’t mean they’re going to be a poor company. Its profits are pretty high. Its cash flows are fabulous. It’s got a very strong balance sheet. I wouldn’t bet against IBM, but it’ll be a smaller company, there’s no question about it.

Steven Cherry Once again, my guest is historian Jim Cortada. When we come back, I’ll ask him about a surprisingly consistent pattern to each of IBM’s transitions.

But first I’d like to say how much we appreciate questions, comments, and suggestions from our listeners. For example, Chris A writes me after just about every energy-related show with thoughtful reflections that have enriched later shows. I can be reached by email at [email protected] or on Twitter @fixthefuturepod. We also welcome your rating us, especially on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. And if you go to an episode’s page on the Spectrum website, you can comment there, subscribe to alerts of new episodes, and find links to the people, places, and ideas mentioned in the show.

We’re back with IBM veteran and historian Jim Cortada. Jim, you have a set of three graphs in the book that literally chart the three biggest transitions of IBM through the decades. Maybe you can describe it.

James Cortada The three major transitions from, if you will, a product and operation point of view is the creation and selling of tabulating equipment from the 1890s to the 1950s; the second major transition is the era of the mainframe and the PC and other hardware products, from the 1950s to the end of the 1980s; and then the current period of services, both managerial consulting processes and also operational services. And that’s the period that we’re in now. Within each one of those, obviously, you get generations of hardware, generations of services. So, for example, on the services umbrella, we did out-sourcing in the 1980s and process engineering in the 1990s. Now we’re doing a hybrid cloud security and the company is doing artificial intelligence work and what have you.

I lived from the transition from the mainframe into and through and up to the artificial intelligence period of IBM. These are graphed on the chart. However, I would also add that in each case, you have different types of employees, different types of skill sets, in some cases different types of customers as well. So we could have made a number of of charts like this, but they all have in common are a couple of messages.

Number one, the transitions took a long time. So when somebody tells you IBM transitioned within two or three years, that’s nonsense. It took a decade on average in each case. The second thing I would point out is it took its customers the same amount of time because they also had to transition simultaneously with IBM. That’s why. One did it and the other one did it, too, because of new technology, new forces in the marketplace. So you’ve got that additional transition.

What the charts don’t say, but it is in the text, is that the culture of the company to a large extent remained essentially the same until the 1990s when the company decided parts of its corporate culture had atrophied and needed significant remake. That is a new type of change that IBM is undergoing right now that is hugely different from what it had in the first hundred years.

Steven Cherry Jim, your book is 621 pages, not counting its notes and excellent index—not enough books have indexes these days. You spent hundreds of hours in IBM’s own archives with the privileged access of an employee. And yet I understand that you’re still learning more about IBM each day, in part due to social media. You’re getting a lot of interesting comments on the article in Spectrum, I understand.

James Cortada Yeah, let me explain how that works, which is kind of fun. You know, there are well over 10 000 retired IBM employees on various Facebook accounts. So when an article like this comes out, either on the System 360 or the PC, I make that article available to that community through the various websites. And of course, they immediately jump on it because most of those people had personal experiences with each of those items. Right.

And it’s amazing who comes out of the woodwork. Take the PC, which was announced in 1981. IBM had been working on that product for about 18 months. Well, obviously one of the things that you do when you’re bringing a new product is figure out, well, how many copies can I sell? Well, the guy who had to come up with that was on Facebook. And so when he read the article, he said, yeah, I love the article. Oh, by the way, I was the lead forecaster on the product. And he was a little sensitive because one of the things I said in the article was IBM grossly underestimated how many PCs would be sold because everybody wanted the PC. And the minute IBM announced it it was just off the charts. He came back with a little response saying, well, my bosses reduced the forecast. And he didn’t want to talk about it anymore. So there’s a mystery out there, but we wouldn’t have known any of that, right? Is this tantalizing—more research to be done as a result of that little comment?

Steven Cherry That’s fantastic. Well, Jim, it’s a remarkable story of a remarkable company, remarkably well told. Thanks for writing it and for joining us today.

James Cortada Thank you. It’s been a pleasure.

Steven Cherry We’ve been speaking with IBM veteran and Ph.D. historian James Cortada, author of the 2019 book IBM: The Rise and Fall and Reinvention of a Global Icon, about IBM’s glorious past, struggling present, and challenging future.

Fixing the Future is sponsored by COMSOL, makers of mathematical modeling software and a longtime supporter of IEEE Spectrum as a way to connect and communicate with engineers.

Fixing the Future is brought to you by IEEE Spectrum, the member magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, a professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

This interview was recorded July 21, 2021, on Adobe Audition via Skype, and edited in Audacity. Our theme music is by Chad Crouch.

You can subscribe to Fixing the Future on Spotify, Stitcher, Apple, and wherever else you get your podcasts, or listen on the Spectrum website, which also contains transcripts of all our episodes. We welcome your feedback on the web or in social media.

For Fixing the Future, I’m Steven Cherry.

Read More

Continue Reading
Microsoft

Can Facebook’s $1 Billion Spend on Content Keep Creators Happy?

User content is very valuable in the media business — so much so that companies are paying people to create more of it. Tech companies, in particular, are investing more dollars into content creation, from livestreaming video and audio to adding short-form video features in hopes that they go viral. Facebook in July said it…

User content is very valuable in the media business — so much so that companies are paying people to create more of it.

Tech companies, in particular, are investing more dollars into content creation, from livestreaming video and audio to adding short-form video features in hopes that they go viral. Facebook in July said it would shell out $1 billion to content creators for bonus programs and incentives that meet the social media giant’s social metrics. 

By the end of 2022, Facebook will invest more than $1 billion into programs aimed at getting creators to monetize on Facebook and Instagram. Some of the funds will go toward its recently released Live Audio Rooms and newsletter tool Bulletin, while some money is part of affiliate reward programs for creators who meet eligibility and metric requirements. It includes in-stream ad bonuses in the next four months to select creators and a Stars program for some gaming creators who can get a monthly bonus for reaching specific metrics over the next three months. The programs on Instagram are invite-only to include bonuses for using IGTV ads and badges in Live and Reels features.

The move follows TikTok’s development of a Creator Fund last year, which will divert more than $2 billion to content creators over the next three years. In May, YouTube said it would put $100 million into its Shorts feature for short-form videos. Alphabet, which owns YouTube, said this is in addition to some $30 billion the company has paid out to creators over the last three years.

Facebook’s plans, however, were short on details into exactly how it would spend $1 billion to boost content creation for its social media apps, which includes WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook. And many questions remain as to whether the move can ultimately keep creators — from gamers to small businesses — on its platforms to compete with fast-growing newcomers such as TikTok and Clubhouse.

“It’s a drop in the bucket for them,” said Greg Fell, CEO of social media app Display, “and they really put some very strict things in how people can monetize that.”

Fell is referring to the requirement that Facebook places on its invite-only bonus programs. In order to get a payout through video ads, for instance, creators need to have at least 10,000 followers and 600,000 total minutes of view time in the last 60 days. A Facebook spokesperson said there are no details available yet on the programs supporting smaller creators or those just starting out. “Ultimately, we want to help as many creators as possible. We will design bonus programs with aspiring and emerging creators in mind, so no matter where they are in their career, there will be bonuses that are achievable,” the spokesperson said.

Launched in May, Fell’s Connecticut-based company is offering creators a 50% revenue share on ad-supported content — a model that he said is not only profitable, but more closely aligned to the entertainment industry that compensates artists and creators for their work. Display ads pays for all types of content, and there is no criteria to have a certain number of followers. “Everyone monetizes,” he said.

“Facebook’s program is designed for entertainment companies that have long-form content, and can edit their content, not for the 99.99 percent of Facebook, which is why this is such a small number in relation to their revenues,” Fell said in an interview. “The short answer is ‘spin.’ They don’t want to really share their revenues with creators. They will share with large media conglomerates because they have to in order to compete.”

Display

In the last two years, singer Bridget Kelly found herself posting less on some of the larger platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, when she said they started behaving more like corporations. Whether it’s changing their algorithms or cutting out artists to go directly to advertisers and sponsors, platforms like Facebook and Instagram don’t actually work with creators to protect and monetize their content, she added.

“They have started to operate like middlemen that are not really conducive to content creators getting their content out there, in order to promote effectively,” Kelly told TheWrap. “A lot of these apps function like big banks and big corporations now, instead of being on the side of advocacy for content creators. A lot of these larger companies are operating like bullies, just trying to make as much money for themselves without honoring the process and effort that comes with all of this content.”

On Display, Kelly said she can work directly with sponsors and partners to manage her business. On YouTube, where she has 41,300 subscribers, it’s hard to monetize because of the way the platform makes money off of advertising and partnerships. There are side deals struck between the platforms and companies that cut out the creators, while money was being made off their content. Kelly said artists should look for a platform that allows them to directly manage their audience and the monetization.

“(YouTube does) Google ads with a totally separate contract that has nothing to do with anything that we see as revenue on our pages,” Kelly said. “There’s a lot of regurgitation and repurposing happening without our permission as creators and also without being able to benefit from it. … I pulled back pretty drastically from Facebook. You’re a little fish in a big pond; it’s not about the quality of the content, not about the creator. It’s about whoever is going to throw the most money at Facebook.”

Display recently reached 5 million downloads, and Fell said more celebrities are signing up to monetize the content they’re already creating, with music content performing well so far. It also offers a 50-50 split with creators on revenue generated through its other features including e-commerce.“It proves the premise that we’re on the right track that creators need to be compensated,” Fell said. “We see this move by Facebook, frankly, as a defensive one. They’re on track to make almost $100 billion this year. They’re not going to want to give that up to the creators unless they have to.”

Just in terms of video, Facebook pays 55% of profit from video ads to creators and keeps 45%, but the company did not provide viewership or engagement data for its platforms. Facebook’s current bonus program is invite-only, and it is unclear how much businesses and creators have actually made by putting their content on Facebook’s platforms.

What is known, however, is that Facebook, much like the rest of Big Tech, saw a blowout quarter this year thanks to the current digital ad boom. In Q2, Facebook’s ad revenue ($28.6 billion) grew by 55%, and this year it joined Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Alphabet reaching a $1 trillion valuation.

Yet, when it comes to video engagement on social media, Facebook may still have a ways to go before catching up to YouTube’s growth. A survey by Pew Research Center this year found that eight in 10, or 81%, of Americans say they use YouTube, while usage of Facebook is 69%. There are more than 2 billion users on YouTube, generating 1 billion hours of videos watched daily. Facebook remains one of the largest social networks with 2.9 billion users.

In recent months, social companies began pivoting to longer videos in the aim to attract more engagement. TikTok bumped up its 60-second videos to up to three minutes, while Instagram said it would introduce full-screen features and video recommendations to the app. There are also efforts underway to integrate more e-commerce into their social content.

Another reason why social media companies are vying for creators? Influencer marketing. eMarketer estimated influencer marketing spending to grow more than 30% this year to hit $3 billion and exceed $4 billion next year. But eventually, people may experience “influencer fatigue,” growing weary of influencer ads and promoted products — and instead prefer more user-generated content, said Adam Dornbuschicon, CEO and founder of Oakland-based Entribe. That’s where investing money into creators could help.

“It’s great for the creator community to spur more authentic content,” said Dornbuschicon. “But I also think (Facebook is) doing it out of a need. They’re getting beaten up by TikTok, they’re losing some privacy rules through Apple. So they’re getting hit from both sides there, and people are getting influencer fatigue.”

On EnTribe, a platform for managing creators, creators are rewarded based on the quality of content rather than the amount of followers. Before EnTribe, Dornbuschicon was at GoPro building its community content and rewards program. They found a 30-second video of a dad, who did not have a huge following, throwing his baby into the air. GoPro ended up making that into a Super Bowl commercial, and that creator made some $100,000 out of it.

Now, people are embracing the more authentic, relevant kind of content created by users. It no longer has to be highly produced and professional in order to get traction, said Dornbuschicon. Because of this, social media networks will continue to compete for creators, both small and large, in order to capture engagement and look especially for those opportunities to go viral.

“There’s a lot more competition out there for a lot of these smaller platforms but if you’ve got something that can go viral like TikTok, it can definitely come after Instagram and Facebook. And they’re not going away anytime soon,” Dornbuschicon said.

With so many options today, most creators will post across all the platforms to maximize their reach and profits, but some creators are realizing that apps like Facebook and Instagram do not have their best interests in mind — despite the cash they’re shelling out. But Dornbuschicon and Fell both agree the industry will see more investments for content from big companies like Facebook.

“Entertainment is what these platforms are now becoming, but they’re going to invest more kicking and screaming,” Fell said. “Certainly Facebook is going to have to invest more than the measly amount they came up with if they’re going to compete against the share of your eyeballs with people like Netflix. They’re going to have to up their game, but they’re going to do it slowly.”
Read More

Continue Reading
Microsoft

File Archiving Software Market to Witness Massive Growth by Veritas, Barracuda, Smarsh

Edison, NJ — (SBWIRE) — 07/30/2021 — Stay up-to-date and exploit latest trends of File Archiving Software Market with latest edition released by AMA.File Archiving Software Market Comprehensive Study is an expert and top to bottom investigation on the momentum condition of the worldwide File Archiving Software industry with an attention on the Global market.…

Edison, NJ — (SBWIRE) — 07/30/2021 — Stay up-to-date and exploit latest trends of File Archiving Software Market with latest edition released by AMA.File Archiving Software Market Comprehensive Study is an expert and top to bottom investigation on the momentum condition of the worldwide File Archiving Software industry with an attention on the Global market. The report gives key insights available status of the File Archiving Software producers and is an important wellspring of direction and course for organizations and people keen on the business. By and large, the report gives an inside and out understanding of 2021-2026 worldwide File Archiving Software Market covering extremely significant parameters.Key Players in This Report Include,
Google (United States),Microsoft (United States),IBM (United States) ,Dell (United States),Veritas (United States),HPE (United States),Barracuda (United States) ,Proofpoint (United States) ,Smarsh (United States) ,Mimecast (United Kingdom),ZL Technologies (United States),Global Relay (Canada)Free Sample Report + All Related Graphs & Charts @: https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/sample-report/100305-global-file-archiving-software-marketBrief Summary of File Archiving Software:
ile archiving software enables you to conserve space on your file server and store content indefinitely and securely, using the proven strength of archiving technologies. Automate the capture of shared file systems into a single repository, and leverage powerful records management controls to comply with policies and simplify the disposal of documents. File archiving provides a reliable foundation for your evolving file storage requirements, reducing future integration costs and protecting your investment in existing technology.Market Trends:
– Rising Demand for High-Efficiency Low-Cost Storage for Data RetentionMarket Drivers:
– File Archiving Software Offers Speed Access To Critical Files is the Major Driving Factor for the Market
– Growing Digitalization and Technological Upgadation in End-use IndustryMarket Opportunities:
– Complete Solution for Archiving Email, Files and Lync IM Conversations is Creates Opportunity for MarketThe Global File Archiving Software Market segments and Market Data Break Down are illuminated below:
by Type (Content Types (Email, Database, Social media, Instant messaging, Web, Mobile communication, and Others), Services (Consulting, System Integration, Training, Support, and Maintenance)), Organization Size (Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Large Enterprises, Other), End Use Industry (BFSI, Retail and eCommerce, Government and Defense, Education and Research, Manufacturing, Media and Entertainment, Healthcare and Pharmaceutical, IT and Telecommunications, Energy and Utilities, Others (Legal, Electronics, Automotive, Construction, Transportation and Logistics, Travel and Hospitality, and Food and Beverages)), Deployment (Cloud-based, On-premises), Pricing Type (Monthly Subscription, Annual Subscription, One-Time License)This research report represents a 360-degree overview of the competitive landscape of the Global File Archiving Software Market. Furthermore, it offers massive data relating to recent trends, technological, advancements, tools, and methodologies. The research report analyzes the Global File Archiving Software Market in a detailed and concise manner for better insights into the businesses.Regions Covered in the File Archiving Software Market:
– The Middle East and Africa (South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Egypt, etc.)
– North America (United States, Mexico & Canada)
– South America (Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, etc.)
– Europe (Turkey, Spain, Turkey, Netherlands Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Russia UK, Italy, France, etc.)
– Asia-Pacific (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Australia).Enquire for customization in Report @ https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/enquiry-before-buy/100305-global-file-archiving-software-marketThe research study has taken the help of graphical presentation techniques such as infographics, charts, tables, and pictures. It provides guidelines for both established players and new entrants in the Global File Archiving Software Market.The detailed elaboration of the Global File Archiving Software Market has been provided by applying industry analysis techniques such as SWOT and Porter’s five-technique. Collectively, this research report offers a reliable evaluation of the global market to present the overall framework of businesses.Attractions of the File Archiving Software Market Report:
– The report provides granular level information about the market size, regional market share, historic market (2015-2020) and forecast (2021-2026)
– The report covers in-detail insights about the competitor’s overview, company share analysis, key market developments, and their key strategies
– The report outlines drivers, restraints, unmet needs, and trends that are currently affecting the market
– The report tracks recent innovations, key developments and start-up’s details that are actively working in the market
– The report provides plethora of information about market entry strategies, regulatory framework and reimbursement scenarioGet 10% – 25% Discount on The Report @ https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/request-discount/100305-global-file-archiving-software-marketKey Points Covered in the Table of Content:
Chapter 1 to explain Introduction, market review, market risk and opportunities, market driving force, product scope of File Archiving Software Market;
Chapter 2 to inspect the leading manufacturers (Cost Structure, Raw Material) with sales Analysis, revenue Analysis, and price Analysis of File Archiving Software Market;
Chapter 3 to show the focused circumstance among the best producers, with deals, income, and File Archiving Software market share 2020;
Chapter 4 to display the regional analysis of Global File Archiving Software Market with revenue and sales of an industry, from 2021 to 2026;
Chapter 5, 6, 7 to analyze the key countries (United States, China, Europe, Japan, Korea & Taiwan), with sales, revenue and market share in key regions;
Chapter 8 and 9 to exhibit International and Regional Marketing Type Analysis, Supply Chain Analysis, Trade Type Analysis;
Chapter 10 and 11 to analyze the market by product type and application/end users (industry sales, share, and growth rate) from 2021 to 2026
Chapter 12 to show File Archiving Software Market forecast by regions, forecast by type and forecast by application with revenue and sales, from 2021 to 2026;
Chapter 13, 14 & 15 to specify Research Findings and Conclusion, Appendix, methodology and data source of File Archiving Software market buyers, merchants, dealers, sales channel.Browse for Full Report at @: https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com/reports/100305-global-file-archiving-software-marketFile Archiving Software Market research provides answers to the following key questions:
? What is the expected growth rate of the File Archiving Software Market?
? What will be the File Archiving Software Market size for the forecast period, 2021 – 2026?
? What are the main driving forces responsible for changing the File Archiving Software Market trajectory?
? Who are the big suppliers that dominate the File Archiving Software Market across different regions? Which are their wins to stay ahead in the competition?
? What are the File Archiving Software Market trends business owners can rely upon in the coming years?
? What are the threats and challenges expected to restrict the progress of the File Archiving Software Market across different countries?Contact US:
Craig Francis (PR & Marketing Manager)
AMA Research & Media LLP
Unit No. 429, Parsonage Road Edison, NJ
New Jersey USA – 08837
Phone: +1 (206) 317 1218
[email protected] more information on this press release visit: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/file-archiving-software-market-to-witness-massive-growth-by-veritas-barracuda-smarsh-1343866.htmMedia Relations ContactNidhi BhavsarPR & Marketing [email protected]: 1-206-317-1218Email: Click to Email Nidhi BhavsarWeb: https://www.advancemarketanalytics.com
Read More

Continue Reading
Microsoft

PSA: You might want to avoid the gobs of Halo Infinite spoilers Microsoft just leaked

If you’re invested in the story of Master Chief, Cortana, and the fate of the Halo universe, you might want to keep your head down and start muting some keywords on social media until Halo Infinite arrives later this year — because vast spoilers for the game’s entire story are now floating around on the…

If you’re invested in the story of Master Chief, Cortana, and the fate of the Halo universe, you might want to keep your head down and start muting some keywords on social media until Halo Infinite arrives later this year — because vast spoilers for the game’s entire story are now floating around on the internet.
Note: we’ll be keeping this post spoiler-free, though.
Halo Infinite creative director Joseph Staten confirmed on Twitter that Microsoft accidentally leaked “a small number of Halo Infinite campaign files” when it launched the game’s first multiplayer beta yesterday on July 29th, saying they “can ruin the campaign experience for everyone.”

Leaks like this are painful for the dev team and can ruin the campaign experience for…

Continue reading…

Read More

Continue Reading