Sexuality, political leanings and even intelligence are, according to Researchers at Cambridge University, just some of what can be gleaned from your trail of ‘likes’ on the social networking site. Campaigners have reacted angrily to the study which, once again, highlights the privacy issues at the heart of most of the company’s negative publicity.

A year ago I wrote a blog describing a similar image problem encountered by Target as their data scientists were left holding the baby having, through highly sophisticated data analysis, found out that a very young, very Christian shopper was pregnant before her father did. By couponing her for baby accessories they let the cat out of the bag and the story went global very quickly thanks to journalist and writer Charles Duhigg.

There are clear parallels between the two stories in that they both flag privacy concerns end users have with regards to their data trails. One way to get round this as an end user is of course to decline all store cards and not use Facebook. This is hardly an appealing compromise for providers or users. Instead privacy settings, terms of use and contracts are put in place to guard our data, however it’s clear from the recent study that while Facebook ‘likes’ are public by default, it’s a leaky vessel for those who choose not to read the small print after every update.

The paradox of course is that Facebook loves your data. It needs it. Data drives almost everything it does and monetising that data is the key to the company’s long term success. Given that the ROI from its original advertising platform is reported to be up to 200 times lower than that of Google search, more or at least better use of data might help. Strong investment in mobile advertising is attempting to win back investors burned by the inflated IPO however given most users are not in ‘shopper mode’ when on the site I would suggest that there are some bigger strategic issues to be addressed. Whatever happens, the use of user data will play a huge role in the companies continued quest for a profitable, sustainable and scalable business model.

For the moment, where user data goes privacy concerns will ultimately follow. The big data gatherers out there must strive for transparency up front and refrain from shifting the goalposts too often in order to build trust with end users. Users can participate by accepting that nothing really comes for free, especially not something as universally popular as Facebook.

Great review by Brian Appleyard, in this week’s Sunday Times’ Culture section, where he talks about “Who owns the future – Jaron Lanier” and “To save everything, click here – Evgeny Morozov”. Now I haven’t read the books yet but after reading this will probably do so. Whether from a future trends perspective or because of  the overtones of Sci-Fi films like The Matrix (and a nod towards Marx’s “opium for the people” quote for good measure) Appleyard’s summary makes them sound thought-provoking.

A couple of tastera…

“In essence the digital economy is based upon an act of theft with which the victim enthusiastically colludes. The stolen goods are the information that is acquired daily from each of us as we interact with out oh-so-seductive gadgets – trinkets tossed to the crowd. So the primary assets of the great internet companies – Google, Apple et al – cost them nothing and do not enrich us all”

“The underlying quasi-religious ideology of Silicon valley is … that it is a law of nature that information must be free and that the whole notion of privacy is 20^th century nonsense”

To which I can only add “Discuss”

As I stood at Paddington station yesterday, waiting for yet another horribly delayed First Great Western service, a commuter passing me stumbled and threw his cardboard cup of coffee out to one side.  As he swung out his arm to steady himself, he released the baguette he was also carrying, which fell to the floor to become fodder for the pigeons.

Watching this little drama unfolding, I reflected on how busy our lives have become in the 21st century – everyone’s rushing all oveer the place, grabbing their sustenance on the move from depressing chain vendors. It’s not food, it’s fuel – and not even necessarily very well suited to being even that.  But when you look around Paddington Station, you realise that it was put together by people who cared about what they were doing, and put thought into their design.  Brunel’s trainshed is proof that it’s not enough just to make something that’s good at doing it’s job when you could build something that looks good as well.  Of course, Bauhaus aficianados will tell you that letting form follow function is good design practice, but then there’s a reason that Bauhaus needs aficianados and exists outside the mainstream…..

Anyway, whilst I stared mindlessly into space, past the depressing realities of 21st century mass railtravel – plasticky carriages of “creatures that move in pre-destined grooves,” something caught my eye.  On platform 9, celebrating its 150th birthday, a locomotive built for the Festiniog Railway to haul slate through the North Wales valleys.  When it was built, no passenger service was envisaged for the line, so this locomotive was designed to be well out of the public eye.

Not exactly utilitarian is it?  When you compare it to the design of much of what we use in every day life today, it’s difficult not to feel that things are going backwards.

I’m not suggesting that contra Bauhaus function should follow form, as that’s clearly daft, but wouldn’t it be nice, where possible, if both could co-exist?

Sergey Brin is right. Google Glass, now being cooked up by his company, is not ready for prime time. The idea is great; the execution, technology and timing will conspire to severely limit its appeal. Just as Apple’s Newton was a daring, but ultimately unsuccessful attempt at forcing the future upon present, so will Google Glass prove to be.

Apple learned a hard lesson, or two, over a few decades. Under Steve Jobs it became exceptionally good at being just enough ahead of the technological and behavioural curve to bring to market extraordinary, breakthrough propositions. It has launched products which hit the sweet spot of people’s expectations, lifestyle choices, emergent technologies and human-centred design.

Now, Google is a great company but it doesn’t understand design, industrial design in particular. It’s cut its teeth on advertising and clever products of the virtual type. It hasn’t had its share of failed physical products yet to really know this particular game. Its pursuit of disruption, arguably in this case, for the sake of it, has led it to creating something that potentially only few people will want.  There is, as I see it, one fundamental flaw to the Google Glass project, as it stands.

Objects of desire

Why so many people who must wear glasses choose contact lenses or even subject themselves to rather unpleasant eye surgery instead? In case the clever folks at Google haven’t realised, human faces, noses and ears have not evolved over painful millennia to carry a piece of metal or plastic strapped to them. Just ask the high priests of 3D TV what does expecting your consumers to wear glasses –inside their homes and away from judgemental eyes of the public, by the way – do to sales. The simple truth is that wearing glasses is not comfortable or natural, at best of times.

On the other hand, bracelets have been on human wrists for perhaps as long as 100,000 years. It’s not a big ask to wear a bracelet or a watch. In fact, people are very keen to put the right kind of wrist gear on. Those objects worn on human wrists are exceptionally totemic and tribal, not only functional – just ask a Rolex or Patek Philippe owner how much, and what sort of pleasure does he/she take from wearing it. And where is emotion, so is human desire and often higher profit margins. After all, there are credible estimates that the watch market will be worth $60 billion in 2013.

From pocket to wrist

Jawbone UP, Nike Fuelband, Pebble watch, Garmin sports watches are just some devices currently competing for consumers’ attention in the “wearable technology” space. In many cases these are only known to – let alone owned by – the fanatical few. The situation in many ways resembles state of the market pre iPod. There were many MP3 players with a niche appeal, clunky software and limited consumer base. Meanwhile, the real innovation was just around the corner. It arguably is this time round, too.

Some analysts estimate that there will be 485milion “wearable technology” devices sold before 2018. It’s, therefore, not surprising, that the big players are all gearing up to have a piece of the action. According to Bloomberg’s reports, Apple is serious about it and has 100-strong design team working on the new watch. That wouldn’t, all that, be strange. It could, however, be quite transformational.

We need another mobile operating system like we need toothache, some would say. So, have the guys from Mozilla (Firefox) and Canonical (Ubuntu) lost their marbles, or can they be onto something?

Recently, the maker of the very popular and pioneering Firefox web browser announced that it is launching a mobile operating system. With the Android and iOS way out at the front and Windows Phone and BlackBerry fighting it out to become the 3^rd platform, the case for yet new operating systems is closed, surely! Not so fast! There is the sub $100 market of the BRIC countries, currently still dominated by ‘dumb’ phones – the relics of the pre-iPhone – up for grabs. There is also the, not-so-small issue of the hearts and minds of consumers (and developers) who prefer open to closed; and cheap to expensive.

Growth

The grand old markets of the Western World are, for the time being, saturated with smartphone tech. The next wave or revenue in this market will be slower, driven by people changing from older models (in cycles 2 years or longer) or those unfortunate ones who need an emergency replacements. Unless and until a disruptive proposition comes along (think of Google Glass or some fancy wearable tech) things will be incremental from now on.

The story is quite different in the emerging markets. As McKinsey reports, emerging markets by 2025 will create a “consumer class” of 4 billion, with half of the people living in major cities and adding $25 trillion to the global economy. There will be an explosion of the smartphone take-up in these markets as consumers connect (often for the first time) to the internet using their newly acquired gadgets. Those consumers will have very little patience for offers which are not seen as good value. Granted, there are big players such as Samsung that are trying to cater for a relatively wide price spectrum. They are, however, often focused on premiumising their brand, (in the case of Samsung mainly through their Galaxy range). They might just take their eye off the ball.

Oh, and then there is the issue of whose world view will prevail.

Principles

As it has been laid out, Firefox and Mozilla are not competing on features or superficial aesthetics. (ahem BlackBerry). They are choosing to compete on an almost philosophical level. They are pitching themselves against the closed, proprietary systems of the old guard (I include Google here). What they offer is open and universal. Based on the HTML5 standard, rather than proprietary apps and app stores, Mozilla hopes to provide a platform for the other half of the world’s population. It is as much a case of principles as it is a case of economic sense, with the predicted population trends and socio-economic shifts.

So, perhaps the Fox will be able to sneak through the back door and steel some of the big boy’s lunch after all? The likes of Microsoft have once tried to kill the pesky Fox and failed. Perhaps this time too, the Fox will take a tasty chunk off their plate.