Photo: niallkennedy / Flickr

Facebook, Google and Apple (in that order) have made it to Glassdoor’s list of top 10 places to work. The findings were published in the review company’s fourth annual Employee’s Choice Awards.

The list contains the top 50 places to work based on information gathered from over 250,000 employees. Things like salary, benefits, work-life balance, opportunities to advance and opinions about the way the CEO runs the company were taken under consideration.

Facebook’s fun

Coming in at third place, Facebook ranked 4.3 out of a maximum score of 5. Facebook employees admitted to having a heavy workload but added that the work was very rewarding. Rather than being micro-managed, Facebook employees are given plenty of responsibility, ‘unreal’ perks and a fun atmosphere to work in. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, scored an approval rating of 98 per cent from his employees.

Google’s great perks

Google, in fifth place, scored 4.0 overall. One reviewer sent a ‘day in the life’ overview of working at Google to Glassdoor. Highlights included a free shuttle to work, free breakfast, a workout with a personal trainer, a massage, free dinner and a free shuttle ride home. Based on 74 reviews, CEO Larry Page earned an approval rating of 92 per cent. Considering all these perks, it’s no surprise Google employees were happy to give their employer and Larry Page such a high rating.

Apple

Apple placed at the bottom of the list, at number 10. Employees commented on being able to ‘work on the products that people have real emotional commitment to’, working in an environment that’s fun and the great pay and benefits the company offers. Negatives included little room for career advancement and repetitive tasks. Tim Cook, CEO, earned an approval rating of 96 per cent, the highest of the three tech companies that made the list.

Photo: Strobe

Facebook has acquired Strobe, a company that offered an ‘app delivery network’ for HTML5-based web applications. This is the first significant acquisition in Facebook’s much rumoured plan to deploy a web-based app platform to potentially rival Apple’s App Store on iOS devices, initially, and then Android and Windows Phone 7 on their own devices.

What’s next

In a blog post announcing the move, the Strobe Team say that: ‘Strobe was founded on the belief that HTML5 can transform the way average people use their mobile phones through apps that are available everywhere, anytime, on any device. Now we’re joining the talented people at Facebook to help develop innovative mobile experiences for their users around the world.’ So a central place for HTML5 deployment? Sounds a lot like a shot at the current platform holders.

Project Spartan comes to life

In fact, this is not the first time we’ve heard of a Facebook HTML5 web app platform. Back in June of this year, MG Siegler of Techcrunch reported on an initiative at the social network called Project Spartan. ‘As we understand it, Project Spartan is the codename for a new platform Facebook is on the verge of launching. It’s entirely HTML5-based and the aim is to reach some 100 million users in a key place: mobile. More specifically, the initial target is both surprising and awesome: mobile Safari,’ reported Siegler.

He continued, saying it was a mobile platform aimed at Apple’s iPhone and iPad, but that would ‘be distributed through the App Store as a native application,’ and ‘will be entirely HTML5-based and work in Safari. Why? Because it’s the one area of the device that Facebook will be able to control (or mostly control).’

Mobile – the next major battleground

The Strobe acquisition could be one small cog in the Facebook Project Spartan Puzzle, and it puts into perspective why Charlie Rose asked CEO Mark Zuckerberg if his company was gearing up for a ‘flat out’ platform war. Sure looks like it from here.

Photo: west.m / Flickr

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called Google+ a ‘little version of Facebook’. The somewhat disparaging comment has only served to fuel the Google Facebook rivalry, while also revealing how Zuckerberg felt about other tech titans like Amazon and Apple.

This is not war

Charlie Rose prompted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to talk about the search giant and other tech titans like Amazon and Apple in asking him if he thought the aforementioned companies would be in a platform war over the next decade.

Zuckerberg responding, saying: ‘People like to talk about war. There are a lot of ways in which the companies work together. There are real competitions in there, but I don’t think this is going to be the type of situation where there’s one company that wins all the stuff.’

Google is a ‘little’ nemesis, Apple and Amazon are friends

He continued, saying: ‘Google in some ways is more competitive and is certainly trying to build their own little version of Facebook.’

As to Apple Amazon, Zuckerberg says he ‘sees companies that are extremely aligned with us. We have a lot of conversations with people at both companies trying to figure out ways in which we can do more together.’

Google responds

Head of Google+ Bradley Horowitz responded to Zuckerberg’s sentiment, saying that they ‘were delighted to be underestimated’. The Next Web reports that Horowitz paid no mind to comparisons between Google+ and any other social networks since he considered them nothing but fodder to ‘give the media advertising and click throughs.’ He insists that his team is focused on improving its core service, and is not spending any time watching what the competition does.

The truth is everybody knows that, for now, Horowitz’s team is just fueling the growing Google Facebook rivalry with Google+, and users may benefit in the long run if it keeps the two companies innovating relentlessly.

Photo: Facebook

Social networking giant Facebook may be more profitable than Amazon this year, according to a report. The fast-growing social network, which now boasts well over 750 million users, has been growing its revenue and profits steadily over the last few years, and eclipsing Amazon will be a quite remarkable milestone for the still young company.

Facebook and Amazon number (un)crunching

TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, now writing on Uncrunched, his new personal blog, extrapolated that Facebook might outpace Amazon in profit in 2011. Arrington writes: ‘In the first six month of 2011 Facebook had $1.6 billion in revenue and abou[t] $800 million in operating income, says a source I trust a lot. That revenue number has been reported before. And the 50% profit margin is in line with last year’s $2 billion in revenue and $1 billion in operating income.’

He continues, writing: ‘With Facebook growing revenue and profit by more than 50% every six months, it won’t be surprising if they hit something close to $2 billion in operating income for the year.’ The kicker comes, with Arrington writing: ‘To put that in perspective, realize this – Facebook will likely be more profitable than Amazon this year. On a quarterly basis they’re already there.’

Winning at the margins

A lot can be made out from this Facebook Amazon comparison. The first is the impact Amazon’s poor margins can have, especially side by side with very good margins. Amazon is on course to make $40 billion in revenue this year, more than 10 times what Facebook is likely to make. The difference is the social networking giant keeps more from every dollar that comes in.

Secondly, it speaks volumes to the advantage retailing software products and building an advertising platform has on selling physical hardware. On average, there’s just more money left at the end of the day if a software company is hugely successful than if that same company was exclusively a hardware company.

Who would have thought there would be a Facebook Amazon comparison as early as 2011? Quite remarkable, actually.

Photo: Bruce Clay, Inc / Flickr

Sean Parker, the Napster founder, Facebook investor, and ‘man who was played by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network’ says that it is unlikely Google+ will topple Facebook. While his financial interest in Facebook makes it prudent he thinks that, his reasoning makes sense, too. Parker argues that two important things have to happen if Google’s social network is to topple the industry leader: relentless innovation on Google’s part, and slacking on the part of Facebook that will result in its site deteriorating.

The requirements

During an onstage interview at the Web 2.0 Summit held in San Francisco on Monday, Parker said: ‘Facebook would have to screw up royally and Google would have to do something really smart.’ Why so? Facebook just has too big of a lead at this stage. Parker said: ‘It is tough to compete with network effects,’ a reality few know better than Google, who have an unassailable lead in search.

Facebook’s challenges

How would Facebook capitulate, then? When asked what the social network’s biggest challenges are, Parker explains that: ‘I don’t think privacy is Facebook’s biggest problem.’ He continued, saying: ‘The biggest problem is the glut of information that power users are overwhelmed with. Maybe the threat to Facebook is the power users have gone to Twitter or Google+.’

And again, what Sean Parker says rings true. There’s a certain threshold in Facebook where having too many friends, with too many status updates, friend requests and notifications becomes more admin than utility, let alone fun. Luckily for Facebook, with its 750 million plus users, I suspect the percentage of users who have that problem tends to the very low end (certainly less than 1 per cent, if not less than 0.1 per cent), so its user base will not be too adversely effected by it all.

Nobody is unbeatable

Still, though, while the chance of Google+ toppling Facebook in the near future seems very slim, I can think of fewer companies with the financial resources and engineering talent that Google have who could genuinely give the social network a run for its money. Nobody wins forever, after all.

Photo: Spotify

Though streaming music service Spotify is in ascendancy, in terms of public profile, the much talked about Spotify Facebook relationship, and in emerging as the leader of the streaming music revolution, the company is still struggling to make things happen where it matters most in business – and that is making money.

Though the service’s revenue has climbed, it’s losses widened this past quarter, both affirming that its expansion has proven a pricey affair, and the overall undertaking of making its streaming model viable is proving rather difficult.

Bleeding money?

Streaming music service Spotify saw its revenue numbers more than quintuple in 2010, it still managed to make a loss of $42 million it reported this past Monday. Media Decoder’s report breaks down the numbers, with Ben Sisario writing: ‘Spotify, which lets users listen to millions of songs by subscription and also has an advertising-supported free version, had $99 million in revenue in 2010, a 458 percent increase from the year before, according to public filings in Britain, where the company is based.’ Of this revenue, 71 million came in the form of Spotify Premium and Spotify unlimited subscriptions, which cost $10 to $15, while the remaining $28 million in revenue came in the form of advertising.

Still, even with these impressive revenue growth numbers, streaming music service Spotify still had to contend with its $42 million loss, up quite a bit from the $26 million losses it posted in 2009.

Building relationships and platforms

While the recording industry is watching Spotify’s performance closely to see just how viable streaming music services actually are, there is argument that the company has been ploughing money into engineering talent to improve its streaming platform, as well as in expanding operations – as evidenced by the recent US launch – and building business relationships. The belief is, at some point, the threshold for expenditure will stabilise dramatically and insofar as the customer base keeps going through the roof, the service will soon be profitable. That’s the idea for streaming music service Spotify, at least. Whether this will be the case remains to be seen.

Photo: Guillaume Paumier / Flickr

With the passing of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates having all but made a transition to full time philanthropy, we’re officially at the end of an era in the technology industry. The big question, of course, is which technology CEOs will shape the next future of the technology industry. We look at the two forerunners and how dramatically they could shape our lives.

Mark Zuckerberg

It’s with some trepidation that we list Mark Zuckerberg as potentially being technologies next great CEO considering the influence his little empire already wields. Being the leader and co-founder of Facebook, a platform with over 750 million users, Zuckerberg is shaping how we communicate with each other everywhere online, and is fast building what some are calling a second internet. Technology, media, content and even communication are all increasingly influenced by the vision of Zuckerberg and his team, making the social network’s leader well-poised to be the Bill Gates of his generation.

Jack Dorsey

Photo: earcos / Flickr

Perhaps the Steve Jobs to Mark Zuckerberg’s Bill Gates – unfair analogy, I know – is Jack Dorsey, co-founder and CEO of Twitter, as well as co-founder and CEO of mobile payments company Square.

Where Zuckerberg controls how we interact with each other, Dorsey’s focus with Twitter was in building a platform for rapid, realtime communication that did not require a one-to-one relationship. With Square, Dorsey is changing how we pay for products and, though it has yet to have the breakout success that Twitter has been, the platform has incredible promise. This, in turn, would make the double success of Twitter and Square akin to Jobs’ own double success with Pixar and Apple, but Dorsey remains a long way away from that level of success.

The differences

Where Bill Gates and Steve Jobs built their reputation on providing the hardware and software for actually getting work done – Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are building their reputations on how they allow us to communicate with each other using the platforms Gates and Jobs pioneered. A case of standing on the shoulders of giants, if you will. Whether either of them will have the lasting impact Steve Jobs or Bill gates did remains to be seen, however.

Photo: Steve Rhodes / Flickr

Last week’s Facebook f8 developers’ conference is widely regarded as the biggest in the company’s history. The content integration, timeline update and redesign have all been given a plenty of coverage – some are saying that the social network’s power is so significant it is effectively building a second internet. The problems this presents to Google have long been documented. Now some are arguing Apple should be on its toes, too.

The fight for media

In a post titled Why Apple Needs a Real Social Network, Mike Elgan over at Cult of Mac argues that Apple and Facebook are officially squaring off in a battle for the future of media.

He writes: ‘Apple isn’t so much a consumer electronics company as it is a media platform. Apple’s success in the last 10 years has all been about changing how people create and consume media and content.’ Elgan argues that the iPod, iPhone, iPad and Mac have all been colossal success stories because ‘they’re all part of a unified strategy for Apple to fix what’s broken with the experience of consuming media and content.’

‘Now Facebook has moved aggressively into Apple territory with a competing model or paradigm for all this,’ he argues. The Facebook model is that we discover content not by browsing iTunes, but by monitoring our News Feed for what our friends and family are enjoying.’

Is he right?

While the Apple and Facebook post touches other areas, that is the gist of the argument, and its viability is wholly dependent on the quality of your friendship networks. Insofar as Spotify and online music service are able to get iTunes-level adoption, the network effects are likely to take some time before they become apparent. But it would be to Apple’s peril to ignore Facebook and the threat it poses, not at all dissimilar from how Apple has methodically disrupted consumer electronics, and the mobile phone industry.

Photo: GOIABA (Goiabarea) / Flickr

Facebook’s upcoming f8 conference is expected to be all about content. While the long-anticipated Facebook Music offering is all but set in stone, the company has other media areas it’s investigating bringing to the platform, and news of plans to hire a Hollywood executive to cultivate relationships with big studios is further evidence of this. How do Facebook movies sound to you?

Building content and platform connections

Reuters reports that Facebook has been in discussion with former MySpace co-President Jason Hirschhorn, who was also an executive at MTV. The social network wanted him to spearhead the company’s talks with media companies, according to sources. Apparently the Hirschhorn discussions didn’t bear fruit, and there is currently no clarity as to whether others are being approached, but the news agency says it’s a signal of intent on Facebook’s part to get deeper engagement with Hollywood.

Replicating the gaming model

One of the sources says: ‘They had held the media industry at arm’s length for a while. It was: “We are a platform, come use us all you want but we don’t necessarily need to partner with you.” But now the attitude has changed.’ The source continued, saying: ‘They realize that one of the next phases in its evolution is to work with the media companies.’

Direct engagement

The company’s success in engaging gaming platforms – especially through its close ties with FarmVille maker Zynga, may have been the prompter for Facebook’s directly courting media and content owners. The company has flirted with offering media content on its platform in recent times, with the Dark Knight being streamed on Facebook, in exchange for Facebook credits.

Insofar as the service is able to cultivate those kinds of relationships and get that level of engagement, Facebook movies could become a steady business stream for the social network.

Photo: Facebook

While Samsung and HTC have intuitively seemed like the most probable (and practical) acquirers of HP’s webOS mobile OS platform, a prominent tech analyst says Facebook would do well to acquire the platform.

Facebook webOS

In an investor note issued on Thursday, Jeffries & Company analyst Peter Misek says that Facebook may be best poised to buy webOS and use it as a platform to further stretch its lead in the social media space. Writing on the Facebook OS, Misek says [via Tech Trader Daily]: ‘Based on our analysis of prospective buyers and our checks, we believe Facebook is the best fit.’

He continues, writing: ‘Due to Facebook’s scale, developer community, and movement toward media (e.g., music) and communications (Messenger), it is possible that an acquisition of an OS asset like this could be a good option. Checks with developers indicate that they would support a potential Facebook OS, and industry sources have noted Facebook’s historic interest in a mobile OS or heavily influencing one.’

Not that outlandish

While the Facebook OS via a webOS acquisition suggestion may seemingly come out of left field, Misek’s rationale is not that, well, irrational. There was once a very hot rumour that Facebook was working on its phone and while that has not come to fruition, we have recently seen a trend with handset manufacturers punting deep Facebook integration as a key feature.

Furthermore, with the company’s platform continually growing, owning the whole software experience on a mobile OS would offer the social network more control over how applications connect with you, too. Add to that deep contact integration and the social network has the most ideal situation possible – becoming even stickier for the hundreds of millions of users who use the services for hours a day every day as is.

RIM will lose

Peter Misek also spoke about the companies that would be most impacted by a Facebook OS, saying that Research in Motion and Windows 8 would be most affected by this new, big-deal competitor.

For now, file this move under ‘unlikely’, but it would be fascinating if it did happen.