An interesting take. I think these all sound good except the third, "Get rid of apps." Apps is really the current Facebook innovation, and clearly the direction Facebook is going. It is too early to declare defeat and reverse course, just because G+ is out.



Interesting that "Do better on privacy" didn't make the list...

Amplify’d from www.macworld.com

Five ways Facebook can fight back against Google+

At the resulting press conference on July 6, Zuckerberg protested (perhaps a little too much) that Facebook wasn’t worried about the amazing success of Google’s social network. The features he announced that day, including group and video chat, seem clearly aimed at Google+, but appear not to have set the world on fire. What can Facebook do to win back the crowd?

Here are five things we think Facebook could do to cope with the power and possibilities of Google+.

Make new friends

As long as the two companies insulate themselves from each other, users frustrated with having to repeat themselves and upload photos multiple times will end up choosing the sleeker social network over the older, tired one. I refer you to the Facebook and MySpace struggle of 2004-2010—except this time Facebook risks repeating MySpace’s mistakes.

Instead, Facebook should put differences aside and allow Google+ users to import their friends from Facebook to Google+. Facebook should deal with Google+ the same way it dealt with Twitter: Permit Google+ users to link their updates to Facebook and, in exchange, Facebook opens up its content to Google+.

Build an ecosystem

Although Facebook is a terrific platform for many things, it isn’t the one-stop shop for Web services that Google is fast becoming. Remember that Facebook and Google are competing to be “always-on” Web destinations. The problem with Facebook’s modular approach is that it gives me too many reasons to step away. I often find myself surfing away from Facebook for some vital service it doesn’t provide, or closing out the window when I’m “done” with the site.

But I’d also like to have more sharing across the Facebook site itself. Facebook needs to think of its services not as individual, modular apps but as linked services, the same way Google does. Groups, chat, and events are starting to see some integration, but the social networking giant still has a long way to go before I can, for instance, organize, create, and share an event just on Facebook.—David Daw

Get rid of apps

But the annoyances outweigh the benefits of the Facebook platform as it currently stands (and as services like Flickr and Twitter show, you don’t need something as large as Facebook Apps to make integration with other apps and websites possible). My Facebook feed is littered with messages from friends’ FarmVille sessions. At any given time, I have a number of app requests and invitations waiting for me.

Most of all, Apps took away some of what made Facebook an attractive alternative to MySpace in the first place. In the early years, Facebook was a clean, well-designed website that made it easy to connect with the people you know. The arrival of Facebook Apps was a pretty significant blow. And while Google+ has some quirks that need to be worked out, it already does a good job of accomplishing what Facebook used to be known for.—Nick Mediati

Compete with Circles

Really, all Facebook needs to do is make the Lists feature more prominent and ubiquitous. If Facebook were to allow wall posts, photo/video sharing, event invitations, and all other instances of social sharing to be sent to specific lists, the company would essentially duplicate the functionality of Circles. Obviously, Facebook would want to prompt users to put their friends in a list each time they add a friend, and the entire Lists interface needs work, but those are problems that Facebook could solve in the short term. The underlying technology—the hard part—is already part of the platform.

Trim down notifications

I really don’t want to know each and every time one of my friends becomes friends with someone I don’t know. Although we can hide certain friends and apps to clean up the clutter, the options to do so on Facebook are limited. Either I can hide a single post, or completely mute an individual so that he or she never appears in my news feed again. Why not just give the option to hide notifications when someone changes their profile picture, or when they enter a relationship?

Right now Facebook has too much clutter, but I dare not mute anyone because I don’t want them to drop off my social radar. Give us more control to filter out what we see in our news feed, and maybe, just maybe, I will come back—ready to poke people again (heck, I may even play a game of Tetris or two, just like in the old days). Until then, Facebook, it’s over between us. I’m moving over to Google+, the sexy new social network on the block Read more at www.macworld.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a17wek

Murdoch’s Sleazy News Corp. Got $4.8 Billion Tax Refund From Washington

This is the sister corporation to the one that supports reporters hacking into personal voicemail. England has one version, America has another, but they are both sleazy.

Amplify’d from wonkette.com

Brave Reuters business columnist David Cay Johnston breaks it down:

Over the past four years Murdoch’s U.S.-based News Corp. has made money on income taxes. Having earned $10.4 billion in profits, News Corp. would have been expected to pay $3.6 billion at the 35 percent corporate tax rate. Instead, it actually collected $4.8 billion in income tax refunds, all or nearly all from the U.S. government.

Fox News, the editorial pages of his Wall Street Journal and other Murdoch outlets often rail against taxes. Their attacks on government benefits for the elderly, the sick, the jobless and children focus attention on the uses of tax dollars and away from his aggressive efforts to enjoy the benefits of civilization without paying for them.

Take a look at your life, and then divest yourself of any exposure to News Corp.’s products. It’s easy! And you will have an immediately better life if you’re not swallowing the swill of Murdoch’s empire of shit, whether it’s the bald-faced evil of Fox News or the mind-numbing broadcast pornography of Fox movies and television shows.

Additionally, don’t spend money on things that pay Murdoch money. If it’s advertised on Fox News or in the New York Post or on the Fox television network, you really don’t need it! Really! You’ve already seen enough of The Simpsons and christ knows you don’t need to be pissing away what’s left of your life watching American Idol. Turn off your teevee and go outside, it’s summertime! (You don’t need anything advertised anywhere. When you actually need something, you’ll know it.) [Reuters/Telegraph] Read more at wonkette.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a17seq

Pretty much how I see it. Time will tell

Amplify’d from www.winsupersite.com

Netflix Raises Prices, Garners Criticism

Netflix this week did something that only a very confident and successful company could possibly do: It raised prices for a popular service that, quite frankly, should simply cost consumers less over time, not more. Similar in that way to last year's Xbox LIVE price hike, the Netflix price hike is seen, perhaps correctly, as a blatant money grab for a captive audience. And it's going to be interesting to see how customers react, in real life--with their dollars--after all the bitching subsides.

In my case, this change will result in about $5 in addition costs per month. Is it worth that? Yes, to me it is. But I understand where the additional cost will be problematic for many people. I also understand that Netflix likely expects many to simply drop the DVD part of their subscription. Which, when you think about it, was likely the plan all along. Read more at www.winsupersite.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a17scw

Amazon Changes Cloud Music Storage

Just in case Google and Facebook forgot about other things going on in the cloud, the competition will be fierce.

Amplify’d from www.winsupersite.com

Amazon Takes Lead Again in Cloud Music by Offering Cheap Unlimited Storage

Now that Apple has played its hand with the iCloud service, online retailing giant Amazon.com has raised the stakes in the looming battle for cloud-based music services and is offering unlimited storage of music files for a low yearly fee. The change comes packaged with a few other enhancements to Amazon's music service that the company hopes will make the service more enticing to users.

"Customers are already enjoying Cloud Drive and Cloud Player, and now for just $20 a year, customers can get unlimited space for music," said Amazon Music Director Craig Pape. "Additionally, we are adding free storage for all MP3s purchased from Amazon MP3, and support for the iPad. Our customers love Cloud Drive and Cloud Player, and we're excited to innovate these services on their behalf."

Amazon was the first of the big three—the others being Google and Apple—to announce and release a cloud-based music service this year. At the time, I noted that while Amazon's service was excellent, the cost was problematic. "Amazon's pricing chart for Cloud Drive amounts to roughly four times the cost of similar tiers for Google's cloud storage scheme," I wrote, comparing Cloud Drive with Google's (non-music based) cloud storage. For example, "Google offers 200GB for $50 a year, but that amount only gives you 50GB on Amazon." With this change, Amazon nicely undercuts Google, though it's possible that the online giant will respond in time.

It also undercuts Apple. Apple was widely expected to launch some form of music service as part of its iCloud platform, but the company won't attempt to duplicate the ability of Amazon and Google services, which let customers upload their entire music collection to the cloud and then stream music to PCs and devices. Instead, iCloud will offer no streaming at all and will provide storage only for newly purchased songs. (For an additional $25 per year, iCloud users can purchase iTunes Match and receive high-quality AAC versions of many of the songs in their music collection; these songs will be stored in the cloud but still cannot be streamed.)

Put simply, Amazon's changes put it back where it was when it first announced the service: ahead of the pack. And that will remain the case until and unless Google and Apple make changes to their own services. Read more at www.winsupersite.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a16z0o