Facebook is a poor replacement as you must be logged in to be able to see a Facebook page.
I don't like being spied on, so I don't have a Facebook account, and never will.
As a pure social networking site for ordinary people, MySpace's days are long over.
Here's an example: http://bit.ly/cLX6RT
It could be that people see FB as a personal network for them and their friends whereas MS is used for music discovery. I think you'd have to work in FB or MS to really know.
Tablets, according to those in the know, are being viewed as saviors for News Corp.’s core business: news and information. He thinks that since devices are not that useful without his content; he eventually wins because he will get people to win. “Content is not just king, it is the emperor of all things electronic!” he recently said.
I think he's missing the point here.
a) Newscorp has flourished as a business because up until recently media has been an industry with a high barrier to entry. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, if you own the only newspaper in town it's a bit like owning a local monopoly. The same applies for television channels, etc. which have high upfront costs.
b) The problem facing Newscorp now is that the internet has lowered the barrier to entry dramatically, so that its size and financial clout is no longer a major advantage. For instance, would you rather read an article in a Newscorp paper or one of PGs essays? In the past it'd be hard for PG to get his essays out there, now it's much easier. This means a much higher level of competition, and competition destroys margins.
c) e-Readers/Tablets don't make the barrier to entry much higher. (You can publish stuff on the Kindle for free, for instance: https://dtp.amazon.com/mn/signin). Hence it's hard to see how he can compete in the tablet/e-Reader space any better than he could compete online.
This has wider implications on the ability to profit over the long run in a capitalist society. In open markets margins should tend to zero. It seems the only way to profit would be to have some edge in terms protected market (monopoly) or slight protected technical advantage for a short period. But once the protected advantages are gone margins should tend to zero. Therefore, this isn't just a problem of old media but of all markets.
... unless you constantly innovate faster than the competition. Politico.com is profitable because the read the situation correctly and innovated in terms of hiring and retaining the best political reporters in DC, even though what they're doing is what "old media" tries to make us believe they're doing: reporting the news. Anyone can try to compete with politico.com, but building a comparable network of well-connected reporters is hard = a new barrier to entry.
> Therefore, this isn't just a problem of old media but of all markets.
First, it's not a problem, it's a good thing. Second, no, this is specifically a problem for old media (and postal services): The internet completely removed the single barrier to entry that protected that business - the local monopolies on dissemination of information.
-- e-readers and Tablets may not make the barrier to entry tougher. But it might get them more subscriptions if apple implements subscription through itunes.
Main page, http://www.bandcamp.com/
Random couple of artist pages for an indication of the customization available, never mind the billing and music serving back end.
http://redfang.bandcamp.com/ http://danielaspector.bandcamp.com/
Here's the comparison of Facebook, Myspace, and Orkut - http://www.google.com/trends?q=facebook%2C+myspace%2C+orkut&...
Nothing surprising, except that there are some areas (USA? Tijuana??) where Myspace still out searches Facebook.
If I were Murdoch I would be focusing on an awesome API for anyone to access any and all of News Corp's material. A content warehouse, by which large users can be charged. Uncooperating with Google is one thing, but it should be balanced with this one.
Otherwise, News could run a public talent search for hackers, like The Apprentice or Rockstar INXS, to find CEOs.
