The major problems with email are over-communication and a lack of contextual priority. Facebook, of all companies, seems most likely to make these problems substantially worse.
The way some corporate IP and Privacy policies are worded this would be something as an employee to avoid. The last thing you want to do is co-mingle behavioural information between work and personal/business.
From reading the website, the impression I get of daPulse is a mix of project management tools with some social networking, viewed through the lense of task tracking.
daPulse is a collaboration tool, so R&D, design, marketing, management - everyone in the company uses it.
It is a bit like you described, PM + social + tasks, but it's designed to help everyone focus on the 'big things'. What it really does is gives everyone in the company one unified view of top priorities, so everyone's in focus on what's important and it gets everyone collaborating with zero e-mails.
As well as task tracking, reports and categorisation there's all kinds of dashboards, agile views (swimlanes, etc), as well as social features like commenting and @mentioning.
Ironic that I see you guys advertising on FB all the time. Would love to chat about your marketing efforts there - from everything I've gathered it's a very difficult channel to scale for most businesses. (My email is in my profile if you're game.)
I'm one week into a Facebook boycott (my first) and already my mom asked me if I had seen something on Facebook about an old high school friend. Keep in mind, my mom isn't even on Facebook .... that's how pervasive it's become.
Same here. Easiest way to share pics of the kids and keep them updated on our family since we live far away. Without my family on FB I would have left a while back.
It's funny, to appease my Mom and others not on Facebook I setup a self-installed WordPress site to share family content. I then notify subscribers via email, which even these days still is an effective communication tool.
It's actually worked (although publishing to it on my part isn't consistent), and makes me feel much better that my content is stored on my server, in a format I control almost completely.
I have a cousin who does that with pictures of her kid, and no one follows the links. She receives less than two unique visitors a month at this point. Turns out we've taught our families to be overly suspicious of 'CLICK HERE FOR XX' advertising and e-mails that even look similar to that model.
I think many of us are finding ourselves in a weird middle ground. The younger generation has moved on to Snapchat/Instagram/whatever to chronicle their lapses in judgement and youthful indiscretions, which used to be Facebook's bread and butter. Meanwhile, grammy's using Facebook to play games and forward me click-bait articles (a modern alternative on her FWD:RE:RE:... emails).
I guess as a working adult, LinkedIn should be my go-to network, but no thank you. Hmm, maybe that's where Facebook is going with this.
Competition already exists. Almost every major enterprise software company minus Oracle. Microsoft does have Yammer, but IBM has Connections, Salesforce has Chatter, TIBCO has Tibbr. There is an independent, Jive. There are also upstarts like Slack.
Facebook would be entering a market that is already crowded. I'm not saying they couldn't make a big splash, only that it's not monopolized by Yammer.
If you give credence to IDC, IBM is actually the market share leader, with Jive in the second position and Microsoft in 3rd.
The IDC analysis report was based on market share of revenue, which placed IBM at the top of the list because IBM has done a great job finding customers to buy their product for more money than Jive & Yammer (aka: Microsoft).
Because social products are much more about engagement and usage vs sales, it would be applicable for IDC to include that metric and weight it heavily in rankings of social enterprise software packages.
I did not know much about Yammer before this. As I looked it up, Microsoft is a parent company, so it makes sense that Yammer comes with Office 365 integration.
Reminds me a lot of the (buggy, modular, quirky) PHPFox (recently changed ownership name to moxi)
Yammer appeared as a "Twitter within your organisation" solution that was basically free for individuals to use. Staff would sign up their team, and then use it like Twitter to keep their team up to date with whatever they were working on.
The money comes in when a team member leaves... as individuals sign up, the company had no means to deny the individual access to these little spaces. So the company would purchase some plan or other, and be able to manage enterprise access. As someone who used Yammer in the early days, this felt like an extortion play.
It was years before Microsoft purchased them, and somewhere around this time they had moved from short statuses to longer posts and various groups, files, etc... a real-time team collaboration space based around a stream of messages that started to look like "Facebook within your organisation". In many ways Yammer became what SharePoint should have been for the collaboration features.
According to TC it's not yet clear if it's going to be a competitor to Yammer / Slack or to LinkedIn.
Either way, for a real collaboration tool that's more than a place to chat, and that has beautiful UI and is used by Uber and Fiverr and other cool startups with names ending with "er", try http://dapulse.com/
I don't get all the Facebook hate. Facebook only knows what you tell it. Put up a profile, don't post too much or at all, don't download the app (use the mobile version), don't use facebook connect, and don't use any facebook apps.
Just use it to keep in touch or get back in touch with people you otherwise would not be able to.
Sure, they're like any other company and will relentlessly push for your to share more and do whatever they can get away with to access more of your personal information, but that sort of comes with the territory. They are basically an identity management company after all.
>Facebook only knows what you tell it. Put up a profile, don't post too much or at all, don't download the app (use the mobile version), don't use facebook connect, and don't use any facebook apps.
And don't use any websites that use any of Facebooks third-party script embeds or use something like HTTPSwitchboard and make sure you never load anything from any present or future Facebook property.
Also don't use any services Facebook has bought or will ever buy (I personally got bitten by WhatsApp and Moves).
Sarcasm aside, you're right. Facebook is now big enough that they can buy your info from other services. I suppose I would just recommend using a throw away email with facebook (one that won't match other services) and making sure you log out when you're done. I mean, if you check facebook semi-regularly there really isn't a need to get email notifications, but if you really want them, you can always forward them from your throwaway. I think that should be enough, right?
Does it not sound ridiculous to you that we have to go to these length to prevent Facebook from having information we don't want them to have? The techniques that have been suggested are beyond the understanding, if not the capacity, of probably 90% of internet users. How are they to keep Facebook from knowing about them if they don't want it to?
Firstly, that's incorrect. Facebook also knows what other people tell it and what it is able to correlate from other data sources. To be fair to them, they've handled the issue with group photo tagging fairly well, but only after there was uproar about it.
They are in the business of collecting and monetising your data. That's fundamentally not in your interests and it's incredibly difficult to stop them from doing it, especially outside the EU. That is why a lot of people hate them.
Facebook would know what other people tell it regardless of how much you use it anyway. It is the same with every other online service. Google knows more about you than Facebook. I guess since they provide more value people are less likely to complain.
Why is it "fundamentally not in my interest" for them to collect and monetize data? That's the price of using the service. Every business needs to get paid somehow.
> They are in the business of collecting and monetising your data. That's fundamentally not in your interests
I hate when phrases like this are thrown about; the collection of your data CAN be very much in your interests, and the monetization thereof makes it free, which is also clearly the preference of most.
The fact that everyone I keep in touch with uses the same system has amazing utility for me. Privacy protections are important, but harping on them as if there is no conceivable personal benefit to data collection turns these discussions into partisan bickering that's hard to take seriously.
It can be in your interests for businesses to know things about you. However it is always in your interests for you to be in control of your own personal data and how it is used, which is not how Facebook operates.
Whether or not FB as a platform is useful is irrelevant to the issue of data ownership. Where people have a particular issue with FB, it is, ignoring Mark Zuckerberg's own statements, that as a business they are reliant on what you might call adversarial data collection: i.e., they will take whatever they can get, not just what you explicitly give them.
Contrast that with say, Google, who have been heading in a similar direction for a while now, but they don't predicate their entire business model on it.
If Google stopped collecting your data today they would still have a very viable business selling advertising based on search terms. If FB stopped collecting data, the company would shut down. Thus any utility you get from Facebook is being paid for by a specific model of data collection that happens to be contrary to your best interests.
You might be happy with that trade-off but a lot of people aren't. I for one an unhappy with the fact they have become a defacto standard that's getting increasingly difficult to avoid.
Facebook apps as in apps that are physically on Facebook. Just use a throwaway email for facebook so they can't link your emails when they buy other companies whose apps you use.
Why are they doing this? Why haven't done this before? I feel that maybe they bet on other things to take off which hasn't and that now they are looking to directly take the wallet of large corporations. If they were as successful as Google when it came to online advertisement, they shouldn't need to do this.
I take this as further cementing of the fact that they cannot give the returns to investors that is well expected and now overdue.
59 comments
[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 242 ms ] threadCheck us out at: https://dapulse.com/
What's the appeal over something like JIRA?
daPulse is a collaboration tool, so R&D, design, marketing, management - everyone in the company uses it.
It is a bit like you described, PM + social + tasks, but it's designed to help everyone focus on the 'big things'. What it really does is gives everyone in the company one unified view of top priorities, so everyone's in focus on what's important and it gets everyone collaborating with zero e-mails.
As well as task tracking, reports and categorisation there's all kinds of dashboards, agile views (swimlanes, etc), as well as social features like commenting and @mentioning.
It's actually worked (although publishing to it on my part isn't consistent), and makes me feel much better that my content is stored on my server, in a format I control almost completely.
Made me giggle quite a bit.
I guess as a working adult, LinkedIn should be my go-to network, but no thank you. Hmm, maybe that's where Facebook is going with this.
One has to wonder whether we will be doing our timesheet tracking/payroll in Facebook instead of $MISC_HR_SOLUTION.
Facebook would be entering a market that is already crowded. I'm not saying they couldn't make a big splash, only that it's not monopolized by Yammer.
If you give credence to IDC, IBM is actually the market share leader, with Jive in the second position and Microsoft in 3rd.
Facebook could do some real damage there.
Salesforce, Microsoft, SAP, JIVE, Tibco, VMWare etc. etc. etc. make competing products.
Because social products are much more about engagement and usage vs sales, it would be applicable for IDC to include that metric and weight it heavily in rankings of social enterprise software packages.
Reminds me a lot of the (buggy, modular, quirky) PHPFox (recently changed ownership name to moxi)
The money comes in when a team member leaves... as individuals sign up, the company had no means to deny the individual access to these little spaces. So the company would purchase some plan or other, and be able to manage enterprise access. As someone who used Yammer in the early days, this felt like an extortion play.
It was years before Microsoft purchased them, and somewhere around this time they had moved from short statuses to longer posts and various groups, files, etc... a real-time team collaboration space based around a stream of messages that started to look like "Facebook within your organisation". In many ways Yammer became what SharePoint should have been for the collaboration features.
That's the v. brief history of Yammer.
Either way, for a real collaboration tool that's more than a place to chat, and that has beautiful UI and is used by Uber and Fiverr and other cool startups with names ending with "er", try http://dapulse.com/
Do they have a choice in the matter?
Funny how this thread is now just (not so) covert spamming of peoples own product "solutions" to this "problem".
Facebook should build a social analytics company, takes Hootsuite outta biz.
Facebook should build a social data company, take Gnip outta biz.
Heck, they should build a search engine (Not Graph Search, that thing is silly hard to learn how to use)
Just use it to keep in touch or get back in touch with people you otherwise would not be able to.
Sure, they're like any other company and will relentlessly push for your to share more and do whatever they can get away with to access more of your personal information, but that sort of comes with the territory. They are basically an identity management company after all.
And don't use any websites that use any of Facebooks third-party script embeds or use something like HTTPSwitchboard and make sure you never load anything from any present or future Facebook property.
Also don't use any services Facebook has bought or will ever buy (I personally got bitten by WhatsApp and Moves).
Sounds easy. Thanks for the advice.
Firstly, that's incorrect. Facebook also knows what other people tell it and what it is able to correlate from other data sources. To be fair to them, they've handled the issue with group photo tagging fairly well, but only after there was uproar about it.
They are in the business of collecting and monetising your data. That's fundamentally not in your interests and it's incredibly difficult to stop them from doing it, especially outside the EU. That is why a lot of people hate them.
Paying for a service and not recieving the service is I would think "fundamentally not in one's interest".
If one then cannot avoid that, then that would probably be potentially irritating.
I'm not sure how much they collect from non users though. Don't they get things from cookies on embedded facebook comment forms?
I hate when phrases like this are thrown about; the collection of your data CAN be very much in your interests, and the monetization thereof makes it free, which is also clearly the preference of most.
The fact that everyone I keep in touch with uses the same system has amazing utility for me. Privacy protections are important, but harping on them as if there is no conceivable personal benefit to data collection turns these discussions into partisan bickering that's hard to take seriously.
Whether or not FB as a platform is useful is irrelevant to the issue of data ownership. Where people have a particular issue with FB, it is, ignoring Mark Zuckerberg's own statements, that as a business they are reliant on what you might call adversarial data collection: i.e., they will take whatever they can get, not just what you explicitly give them.
Contrast that with say, Google, who have been heading in a similar direction for a while now, but they don't predicate their entire business model on it.
If Google stopped collecting your data today they would still have a very viable business selling advertising based on search terms. If FB stopped collecting data, the company would shut down. Thus any utility you get from Facebook is being paid for by a specific model of data collection that happens to be contrary to your best interests.
You might be happy with that trade-off but a lot of people aren't. I for one an unhappy with the fact they have become a defacto standard that's getting increasingly difficult to avoid.
They buy every even remotely successful app, so it's hard not to.
I take this as further cementing of the fact that they cannot give the returns to investors that is well expected and now overdue.
> Facebook only knows what you tell it.
Facebook collects lots of information on you if you're a member or not, and much more than you tell it. Don't believe me? Search on those keywords.
http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/facebook-finally-adm...