Twitter's redesign today has one major goal: To get the microblogging service out of Facebook's shadow.
And whether Twitter execs are aware of it or not, in so doing they're taking advice from Sean Parker--the founding president of Facebook, who might know a thing or two about social media.
Mr. Parker about Twitter during a conference last month in Tucson, Arizona. Parker was late to join the Twitter bandwagon. He blasted out his first tweet--an apology to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg--in early October. "Sorry Zuck, I had to do it eventually," he wrote.
Parker, being Parker, quickly amassed more than 100,000 followers, and today that number has climbed to almost 345,000.
Still, Parker told me he wasn't sold on Twitter. He wasn't convinced all those followers meant much, or that they were even human beings. Were his followers really paying attention to what he tweeted? How would they even see his stuff?
Parker's complaint is one I share and hear often: The river of tweets rushes by so quickly--especially if you're following several hundred people--that it's way too easy to miss the stuff you might care about most.
The way Parker saw it, Twitter had only one way to fix this looming problem with what the business types like to call reader "engagement."
Twitter's new look
"They need to become more like Facebook," he told me. And now that's exactly what Twitter is trying to do with its overhaul. It's wrapping its new look and feel around your "home" page--itself a Facebook-like development.
Twitter was never an intuitive service. It felt like something built by engineers, with a "bolted-together" feel that makes it way too difficult for many people to get started on their own. In fact, one of its most useful features--the hashtag, which lets people target their tweets to specific topics--was developed by users, not the company. (Still, the meaning of many hashtags--#NCT, anyone?--often remains obscure until you look them up.)
So today Twitter did something seemingly small but very smart. It's killing off the word "hashtag" and replacing it, high on the home page, with an English word: "Discover."
More importantly, Twitter is adding some intelligence to the "discover" feature that should help improve engagement. Click on discover, and Twitter promises to deliver a useful steam of customized information.
Photos, too, are key to the new redesign, and that's another area that Parker told me he thought Twitter needed to work on. A big part of Facebook's appeal--and something that keeps users coming back and sticking around--is that it's an easy place to share and store your photos.
Previously, photos were anything but easy to tweet, and when you managed it, they'd just turn up in tweets as abbreviated links to some photo-hosting service. Now photos appear neatly as part of a tweet. One click and they open up as part of the message. And it's all tied to your home page as a way to make it all easier to use and, more important, to up the odds you'll hang out a while.
Twitter, Facebook, Google+: Three-way brand page shootout
Twitter has finally joined the modern world of marketing and branding by rolling out support for company brand pages in its redesign today.
Facebook got here first, of course, and Google+ joined in more recently. So if you're a marketer, you've got to be asking, what's the best platform for you to focus on?
Let's find the winning services in the important areas.
Reach: Facebook
Facebook wins this one, hands down. With a reported user base of over 800 million, if you want to put your brand on the platform where users are--and where they're talking to each other--Facebook is the place.
Twitter is likely in second place, probably with about 10 to 12% of Facebook's user base (depending on which sources you believe) but its social reflection model (retweeting) makes it more powerful than the raw numbers would indicate.
Google+, no matter what the numbers say, is new, is seen as the social network for geeks, and doesn't have the breakout appeal of the other networks. You can't say, "Find us on Google+" in an advertisement and expect people to know what you're talking about.
Flexibility: Facebook
Facebook, again, wins on this front. A brand manager can make a Facebook page that does almost as much as a regular Web page, and with the added bonus of having a "Like" button in a standard position to encourage social sharing.
Facebook also lets managers create nice lists of related Facebook pages in the left-hand navigation.
Neither Twitter nor Google allow you to dump huge blocks of HTML into brand pages. Google+ does, however, have more post types than Twitter. A string of photos or embedded videos can make a Google+ brand page look like a photo album.
Twitter brand pages are, not surprisingly, lists of tweets. Brand managers can pin a single tweet (with an image) to the top of the stream, but the rest is just text and links.
Design: Twitter
While Facebook offers the most flexibility of design, giving managers access to the whole middle of the page (see Best Buy), Twitter allows its brand users to do a far better job of reinforcing their company's aesthetic.
Twitter gives managers the capability to change the color scheme of the entire brand page, as well as put in their own header art and background image. Check out these early examples of Twitter brand pages: Heineken, Dell, and Pepsi. They all share the same locked-down template, but reflect their corporate designs effectively.
Google+ allows designers to change company logo and header art, actually five little squares of header, but nothing else. The limitation can be used to good effect (Angry Birds) or mitigated through a mostly-white design (Hugo Boss).
Interaction: Facebook/Twitter tie
Facebook is all about the Like. Some brands have millions (Best Buy has 5.5 million). These Likes are valuable, as each represents social network reflection out to, potentially, millions more people.
Facebook also makes it easy for brands to bribe users, by restricting content or features to users who have Liked their pages.
Twitter's interaction is about two things: The Follow and the @ Reply. While the Follow is the Twitter equivalent of the Like, a personal endoresement of a sort, Twitter's large and plain inclusion of the reply box on its brand pages encourages users to send public messages to and about brands. The reply box is somewhat misleading, though: It says, "Tweet to..." instead of "Tweet about..." But it looks like an effective way to get users to reinforce brands by posting items with their Twitter handles in them.
Google+ interaction design is a bit of a mess, in comparison. The main interaction points are the +1 and "Share this page" buttons, but I wager that most users don't know the difference, and they're right next to each other. Users can also comment on individual items on a Google+ page, but these will not have the same social spread as the stronger overall brand mentions that Facebook and Twitter have engineered into their designs.
Mobile: None of the above
Each of the three services presents a constrained view when called up on a smartphone. Designs are removed, and any HTML elements are stripped out and and replaced with lists of posts. The services look much the same, in fact, on claustrophobic mobile devices. They all become just lists of updates, with easy access to their platforms' primary social activities: Likes andcomments on Facebook, Retweets on Twitter, and Comments on Google+. None of the services offer brands a good, customizable mobile experience.
The winner
Facebook is where the power is, but Twitter's clean design and interaction model makes it an attractive and necessary secondary platform for marketers to work on.
Google+ doesn't have the features, reach, or clarity to compete with these two power players yet.
However, the clear and best course of action for a marketer or brand manager is to establish a presence on each platform. They can even reinforce each other to good effect.
Pepsi, for example, lists its Facebook page as the go-to link in its Twitter profile.
AT&T throttles speeds for heavy data users
AT&T is apparently making good on its promise to cut back on speeds for heavy data users.
Posted by tech enthusiast site CultofMac, a text message sent by AT&T to such a user says that "Your data usage is among the top 5 percent of users. Data speeds for the rest of your current bill cycle may be reduced."
The data restriction policy comes as no surprise. AT&T had announced back in July that it would throttle speeds for heavy data users starting on October 1. The policy affects only subscribers who still have an unlimited data plan. Those with limited data plans who go over their allotment are simply charged for the extra data.
AT&T has not made it clear how much data you'd need to gobble up to appear in the top 5 percent, but the carrier has said that such users consume around 12 times more data than the average customer.
Responding to CNET's request for comment, an AT&T spokesperson promised to provide further details on its data policy.
News that the policy is being implemented comes at a time when AT&T is seeing increased sales thanks in large part to the iPhone 4S. The company announced yesterday that it expects to reach a new record of more than 6.1 million smartphones sold in the fourth quarter. AT&T activated more than 1 million new iPhones in just the first five days of the device's launch in October.
The company isn't just counting on the iPhone to boost business. AT&T just released its latest 4G LTE Android phone, the LG Nitro HD, as it tries to build up its LTE network.
But as business rises, so does data usage. J.P. Morgan estimates that the average iPhone user will consume around 800MB of data per month. That's not far off from the average non-iPhone user projected to grab around 825MB each month.
AT&T has itself been dinged in the past for its slow and sporadic network performance, especially among iPhone users. Though it's struggled to improve its network over time, the company still seems to be facing an uphill battle, certainly in terms of customer service and customer perception.
It was recently rated the worst cell phone carrier for the second year in a row by Consumer Reports. And earlier this year, it ranked at the bottom among all carriers in a survey conducted by J.D. Power and Associates.
So what's T-Mobile's backup plan?
With AT&T's deal to acquire T-Mobile USA on life support, T-Mobile may need to start considering a Plan B.
By itself, T-Mobile is a wireless operator struggling to keep its best customers from leaving. Over the past several months, the carrier has aggressively cut prices and made itself a haven for bargain seekers--all for the sake of sparking a little growth. As a result, it resembles more of large prepaid carrier than one of the traditional national players.
But with the promised breakup fee from AT&T if the deal isn't approved, including $3 billion plus spectrum and roaming agreements with AT&T, T-Mobile could be coming into some cash. And that cash comes with some options. From going it alone to striking up new partnerships, T-Mobile can choose many different avenues to pursue.
Of course, AT&T could still pull off a miracle and get the deal pushed past objections from both the Justice Department and Federal Communications Commission--the ideal scenario for both companies. But it doesn't hurt to consider T-Mobile's options.
The solo route
T-Mobile, presumably flush with cash thanks to AT&T, could attempt to go at it alone. T-Mobile's parent, Deutsche Telekom AG, hasn't been subtle about its intentions to dump the U.S. market, but maybe a $3 billion cash infusion would change its mind.
"The breakup fee could give Deutsche Telekom some incentive to do something," said Chris Lemley, a professor at Georgia State University's business school.
AT&T attempted to sneak in a disclosure on Thanksgiving morning that it would take a $4 billion accounting charge in the fourth quarter to cover the potential fee.
In the meantime, T-Mobile will likely continue to act as the low-cost option for consumers. While the other carriers are busy building out more advanced 4G networks, boast stronger phone lineups that include the Apple iPhone, and have more marketing and service resources to employ, T-Mobile can only compete on price. Having lost a lot of high-value contract customers, the carrier is expected to continue its path of pushing its prepaid service, analysts say.
"Whether they can stabilize their business, we'll see," said Walter Piecyk, an analyst at BTIG Research, noting that the recent actions have helped improve some of its customer trends.
Go on a buying spree
DT could decide to put that $3 billion fee to work on potential acquisitions. T-Mobile could expand its prepaid presence by scooping up regional players such as MetroPCS or Leap Wireless, although both of the smaller companies use differing wireless technology.
More likely, T-Mobile could seek more wireless spectrum. The carrier currently lacks sufficient spectrum to move to 4G LTE, and DT has shown a reluctance to spend for that resource. The company could hope for more spectrum to be auctioned off by the government, or pursue an acquisition.
The company could also look at Dish Network, which has been slowly amassing a nationwide swath of spectrum. While Dish has a plan to build an LTE network, it could be willing to part with it or partner with T-Mobile. Likewise, Clearwire has said it is looking to sell some of its excess spectrum to raise cash.
Even if it doesn't use the spectrum, having the extra assets could be valuable if T-Mobile were to look to sell itself again.
Either way, opening up its wallet would be a strange turn of events for a business whose parent has so traditionally been so reluctant to spend money in the U.S.
Pursue a cable hookup
T-Mobile could find allies in the cable providers, which have traditionally worked with Sprint Nextel. The cable companies are sitting on their own war chest of spectrum that fits perfectly with T-Mobile's own assets.
"Cable is still very much an option," said Craig Moffett, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "The opportunity to swing cable from the Sprint camp to the T-Moblie camp can't be lost on Deutsche Telekom."
Related stories
Justice Dept to block AT&T's T-Mobile deal
AT&T to take $4 billion charge to cover possible T-Mobile breakup fee
FCC chairman comes out against AT&T's T-Mobile buy
But it is unclear how a deal would be structured. The cable providers have no interest in running a wireless business, having learned their lesson from the failed Pivot joint venture with Sprint.
They currently offer some wireless service through a wholesale agreement with Sprint and Clearwire. Rather than buying the considerable amount of spectrum, T-Mobile could strike a deal in which it could obtain the spectrum in exchange for a stake in the business. Moffett noted that the cable companies could eventually back a T-Mobile initial public offering, which would succeed in lower Deutsche Telekom's exposure to the U.S.
The cable companies, meanwhile, would get access to another wireless service provider and guard against the risk of Clearwire and Sprint dropping the ball on their 4G LTE deployment. Their current agreement with Clearwire has been an "utter debacle," Moffett said.
Having another wireless provider would also help when negotiating for wholesale pricing, Piecyk added.
Alone, T-Mobile and the cable provider's spectrum looks "stranded," Moffett said. But together, the spectrum represents a nationwide swath worth as much as $30 billion. Practically, the cable company's spectrum assets aren't worth as much because there is no network or wireless provider willing to put them to work.
Which is why the cable providers and T-Mobile would fit nicely together.
Sprint and T-Mobile
This scenario has a lot of fans on Wall Street. But given the regulatory scrutiny that the AT&T deal is facing, it's increasingly unlikely that the government would approve this combination. While Wall Street sees a combination between two weak players as good for the industry, regulators may be concerned that the merger of two low-cost providers may mean higher prices in general.
There are a number of other obstacles as well. Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile run on differing wireless technologies, requiring one to change over to the other. While Sprint has the ability to handle multiple wireless technologies with its planned network upgrade, that remains a major issue as the two sides attempt to reconcile their differences.
Sprint is low on cash and in no position to buy T-Mobile, so the deal would be structured as a merger of equal, with Deutsche Telekom taking a large--possibly majority--stake in the combined company. For Deutsche Telekom, that may not even be worth the trouble.
"It would be a smaller shareholder in a much larger and more complicated company," Piecyk said. "Is that an ideal scenario?"
Switching parents
This is admittedly a bit more out there, but Deutsche Telekom could attempt to sell T-Mobile to another major global wireless provider looking to get into the U.S. business.
"There are a lot of players Deutsche Telekom could sell it to," Lemley said. "It could get T-mobile access to new capital."
One potential buyer could be China Telecom Corp. Earlier this month, the head of its Americas business told Bloomberg that it would start selling wireless service under its own brand next year. He also signaled a willingness by the company to buy its own wireless network.
Although given the U.S. government's past attitude towards Chinese-American deals, it's unclear whether such an acquisition would go through unscathed. Regulators have squashed smaller attempts by Chinese companies to acquire U.S. businesses, and a critical asset such as T-Mobile would easily find itself in the crosshairs of politicians.
With AT&T's trial against the Justice Department not starting up until February, and AT&T's willingness to fight tooth and nail to save the deal, there is still a lot of time left.
"Eventually, though, it will be time to entertain Plan B," Moffett said.
Rumor revival: iPhone 5 to sport 4-inch display
Is the iPhone 4S the last iPhone to have a 3.5-inch display? That's what Japanese Apple tracking blog Macotakara is reporting.
Citing an unnamed source, the site says that Hitachi and Sony have already started shipping 4-inch LCD panels to Apple for use in "new iOS devices." The two companies are also said to be providing panels for Apple's next iPad, which is said to be "changed fundamentally."
If true, the move would suggest that Apple has not just decided on the design for the followup to the iPhone 4S, which was unveiled and released just last month--but is beginning to collect parts and produce units.
Yet the 4-inch display rumors ahead of that unveiling were numerous. In February, a snapshot out of China depicting the front screen of what looked like an iPhone with a larger and wider display cropped up. Just weeks before, component industry tracker DigiTimes claimed that Apple was eyeing bigger screens, in part to better compete with Android and Windows Phone devices.
Then, in March, something a little bit more interesting happened. Purported "mold engineering" drawings made the rounds, depicting a device that looked like an iPhone 4 but with a noticeably larger screen. This was followed in June by blog This Is My Next, claiming that Apple was working on an iPhone with a 3.7-inch display, and a slew of cases that hit store shelves designed for a slightly larger, but thinner iPhone, based on an alleged prototype device leaked from a manufacturing facility.
Alternatively, a report by our own sister site CNET France near the end of September loosely claimed Apple would use a qHD (960x540 pixels) screen that measured about 4.2 to 4.3 inches diagonally. That's compared to the iPhone 4 and 4S' 3.5-inch display that runs at a higher 960x640 pixels.
One of the most recent reports ahead of this came last week from iLounge, which laid out several rumors about Apple's product changes during 2012. On that list was an iPhone with a 4-inch display, alongside metal casing and a summer launch.
Apple currently maintains three basic sizes for apps to fall into: non-Retina Display iPhones and iPods, Retina Display iPhones and iPods, and the iPad. Changing dimensions with two additional configurations would mark another step for developers when designing their software, be it utilities or games.
Google's Angle grows up, improving browser graphics
Angle, a Google graphics project for Windows computers, has passed an important certification milestone that could improve some browsers' graphics.
Google launched Angle in March 2010 as a way to help the fortunes of WebGL, the nascent 3D graphics technology for browsers. And yesterday, Google programmer Vangelis Kokkevis announced Angle has been certified to pass the OpenGL 2.0 certification test suite.
WebGL provides a low-level graphics interface that mirrors the OpenGL standard used on Mac OS X, Linux, iOS, and Android, but that's still a second-class citizen on many Windows machines. Windows comes with Microsoft's rival standard called Direct3D, and it's Angle's job to translate OpenGL commands into Direct3D.
"Angle is a necessary step in our continued efforts to push the web platform forward. Without Angle, it would be impossible to reliably run WebGL on many Windows computers, so we couldn't enable great applications like MapsGL," Kokkevis said. MapsGL is an optional WebGL-based interface to Google Maps that provides 3D buildings and other features not ordinarily present in the online mapping tool.
Angle is used in both Chrome and Firefox to bring WebGL to Windows machines. That's important given that Microsoft has been downright frosty toward WebGL, but traditional game programmers are eager to tap its abilities for building more sophisticated 2D and 3D games to the Web.
TransGaming, a company specializing in cross-platform gaming technology, helped improve Angle so it could perform the full set of OpenGL commands, Kokkevis said.
Convincing Microsoft to embrace WebGL remains a very large hurdle to the technology's success. Even with Angle, Internet Explorer doesn't support WebGL, which means developers making games, virtual worlds, or splashy Web application interfaces can't rely on it being present even in modern browsers. For users, that means worrying about Web sites with annoying warnings such as "this game only works in recent versions of Firefox, Opera, and Chrome."
Europe rules ISPs can't be forced to block pirate sites
Good news from Europe: ISPs can't be forced to monitor or block customers from using the Web. A European court has ruled that record labels and film studios can't use the courts to instruct a broadband company to track or try to block a customer.
"E.U. law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an Internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files," the European Court of Justice ruled.
Record labels, film studios, and other owners of copyrighted music, movies, or media have in recent years tried to steer government and courts toward making ISPs responsible for piracy. They argue that ISPs should keep an eye on what their customers are doing online, and if they spot a customer illegally accessing copyrighted material, courts should order the ISP to boot the customer off the Internet.
"E.U. law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an Internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files," the European Court of Justice ruled.
Record labels, film studios, and other owners of copyrighted music, movies, or media have in recent years tried to steer government and courts toward making ISPs responsible for piracy. They argue that ISPs should keep an eye on what their customers are doing online, and if they spot a customer illegally accessing copyrighted material, courts should order the ISP to boot the customer off the Internet.









