Just hours after debuting Google+, a new social network, Google announces that user data can be exported. It’s a clear attempt to poke at Facebook’s walled-garden policy towards user data.

Wired Top Stories

E-commerce is, like, so 2010. These days, it’s all about “F-commerce” — with major brands hawking everything from ketchup to skinny jeans via the world’s most popular social network.

When Facebook opened up its tabs iFrame for developers and expanded offerings for applications and business pages in February, it unlocked a whole world of opportunities for enterprise. Suddenly, businesses could gussy up their Facebook pages, making them look and feel a lot less like, well, Facebook pages.

Meanwhile, merchants could take advantage of new, seamless click and pay e-commerce options. Hence, F-Commerce was born. In the last few months, various corners of the web have been debating whether Facebook could really overtake the web. Some say yes, while others say no.

While in Austin, Texas, I met Steve Golab, an F-commerce pioneer who this week started hawking coffee mugs, T-shirts and burnt-orange and brown (a very trendy color combo) burlap totes on a newly launched Facebook storefront. Golab, the co-founder and CEO of interactive marketing company FG Squared isn’t banking his business on selling eco-friendly grocery bags, he’s betting that other small- to medium-sized businesses that make up his agency’s clientele are going to move away from the big wide open web and into the giant walled garden of Facebook.

While last year, the bulk of his work was focused on the Jive platform for enterprise clients, now he wants to design for Facebook. “To me it was fairly obvious, it was a no-brainer really,” says Golab.

FG Squared offers custom jobs (the whole package, from project management to design and copywriting will run just under ,000), but the business model is obviously turning to creating plug and play templates for businesses to use themselves — something Golab hopes to offer.

The biggest advantage for smaller businesses— well, other than instant access to the largest social  network and the ability to communicate with your community instantly—it’s free. There is no monthly hosting or domain fees.  And, at least for now, Facebook isn’t taking a cut of sales.

“This is what we are all wondering about now. How long will it last?,” Golab says. “The success of this is really hinging on what Facebook decides to do. If they start charging, that could be it.”

Photo courtesy of Flickr user overthinkingme.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• How to Make Facebook Stores Pay Off
• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• The Structure 50: The Top 50 Cloud Innovators

alt=''
border='0'
/>

GigaOM — Tech News, Analysis and Trends

Google has gotten a lot of attention for the launch of One Pass, the all-in-one subscription plan for publishers that the search giant revealed earlier today — primarily because it made for a nice counterpoint to Apple’s new in-app subscription system, which launched on Tuesday. While Apple’s offering is closed and takes a big chunk of the revenue from publishers, Google’s takes a much smaller cut — and because it is based on the web and not on controlling access to a walled garden, Google’s system is much more open. That said, however, it’s not at all clear that publishers are going to get anywhere by signing up for it, open or not.

The main benefits of Google’s plan are fairly obvious: it doesn’t force publishers to provide the company with preferential access to their customers, the way Apple does by requiring in-app purchasing for all subscription services, and Google is only taking 10 percent of the revenue that any publishers bring in via its payment system, while Apple takes 30 percent of all subscription fees. On top of that, as MG Siegler notes, the One Pass system provides publishers with access to information about those who sign up — names, email addresses, zip codes and so on — which is crucial data that content companies use to market their services to advertisers. Apple turns this option off by default, and users have to opt in.

That’s the good news. And the bad news? The bad news is that Google’s One Pass is pretty much just a warmed-over content paywall. All it does is collect the money for publishers who want to try and put up a toll-booth around their content. In fact, the thing that it resembles the most — as Josh Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab notes — is the Journalism Online Press+ system that entrepreneur Steven Brill and former Wall Street Journal executive Gordon Crovitz have been peddling to newspapers and magazines for the past year or more, without much success.

Like that system, Google’s service is essentially designed to handle the payment processing for multiple subscription sites, so that users can theoretically sign up for dozens of them and not have to worry about being nickel and dimed by each one. There’s just one problem: there’s no sign that users have any interest in doing this — or at least, not in large enough numbers to make it work for anyone other than perhaps The Economist and the Wall Street Journal. Those who have put up new paywalls, including The Times of London, have seen the vast majority of their readers disappear into the wind.

One of the reasons why users of Apple products like the iPhone and the iPad seem a lot more willing to pay for things like apps is because the experience is so much better and paying is so easy. But despite that, magazine and newspaper publishers have have had little success so far in getting people to pay for their apps. Why would it be any easier with Google’s One Pass? If anything, it’s likely to be even harder, because it’s based on the open web — and users are likely to notice that all around them is free content, while iPhone and iPad apps do a fairly good job of disguising that fact.

So congratulations to Google for making some hay with its launch, but any publisher who sees One Pass as some kind of golden ticket is dreaming in technicolor.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

• How Media Companies Can Compete Online
• Demand Media — Search Spam or the Future of Content?
• Google Needs to Fix Its Spam Problem Even If It Hurts

Post and thumbnail courtesy of Flickr user David Kozlowski

GigaOMTech

Apple has banned sexy apps. But apps from Playboy and Sports Illustrated remain. Why does Apple care what turns me on?

If you need another example of why the iTunes App Store‘s walled garden is flawed, Apple has been only too happy to oblige, capriciously and arbitrarily removing an unknown number of “sexy” apps without warning. All that’s missing to complete the metaphor is a flaming sword.

Some of those apps were certainly garbage, but it seems most were simply slideshows of women in various states of undress.

Jenna Wortham, writing for The Times, quotes Apple’s Phil Schiller: “It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.”

By Apple’s own count, there are over 130,000 apps in the App Store. With a selection that varied, I’m sure there’s something to offend everyone.

How about an app that discusses abortion and birth control law? Maybe an app that helps you hook up with gay guys? How about an app that teaches you how to evangelize the fundamentalist Christian religion?

Think about that last one for second and the furor that would erupt if Apple made a sweeping ban of religious apps from the App Store. I am not a Christian. I would be concerned if my child were discovering religion before I’d gotten a chance to talk to them about it. (Especially since that would mean I had given birth to a baby without a mother, completing—if adventitiously—my dream to be the Male Madonna.)

Yet I wouldn’t blame Apple for letting the app be sold, just like I wouldn’t complain that I found it morally offensive, its existence alone threatening and insulting. And to be clear, I’ve got absolutely no problem with the “Grindr” app pictured here being on the app store. Smoke ‘em if you’ve got ‘em. It’s simply a great example to highlight how subjective Apple’s ban has been. That image is right there on its App Store page.

Look, we know censorship is wrong. We’ve been having this conversation as a society for a couple hundred years, and if you haven’t learned by now that freedom of speech negates freedom from offense, there’s nothing I can do to convince you except renew your subscription to Hustler.

The issue at hand is that Apple doesn’t have to abide by the laws we’ve put in place in our society because the App Store is part of its business. Often I feel like that’s a good thing—or at least fair dinkum. They built it; they get to run it.

With a closed ecosystem comes a lot of responsibility. Apple has taken on the heavy mantle of arbiter, ostensibly to manage quality. I can forgive them for that, even if I don’t like it. But the only reason to ban blue apps is taste. And if these apps were a matter of taste, why were they approved in the first place? What will the next set of apps be that Apple decides are inappropriate long after people have spent hundreds of hours creating and marketing them? Ban apps because they’re poorly designed—not because they’re simply sexual.

Apple is making a moral judgement, declaring that nudity and titillation is something that should made hidden and shameful. It’s disappointing that a company so publicly supportive of progressive sexual rights would react so orthodoxly.

Actually, it’s worse than that. Apple is trying to take the easy way out, talking about degradation of women and the innocence of children, but allowing content from established brands—brands that exhibit sexual material meant to arouse—simply because they’re well known and thus “safe”. Apple is aping the sexual posturing of conservative American society, defining what expressions of sexuality are acceptable to even acknowledge.

Sure, there’s still plenty of smut out there on the internet, readily accessible through the iPhone’s Safari web browser. That’s not the point.

Apple has made a declaration: that sex and sexuality are shameful, even for adults. But only sometimes. And only when people complain.

Unfortunately, they’ve accomplished the opposite. The only thing I’m ashamed of is Apple.

In the US we have a somewhat myopic view of cell phones. We have iPhones and Blackberrys and now Androids and Nexuses for smartphones, and a whole bunch of feature phones from manufacturers like LG and Motorola and Samsung. Notably absent from most wireless stores in the U.S. are Nokia, which is odd since Nokia owns more of the global cell phone market than its next three competitors combined. Part of this discrepancy is no doubt due to the market differences between U.S. carriers and wireless carriers in the rest of the world. But a large part of this can be explained by Nokia’s sheer arrogance.

When I was at Nokia World in late 2008, I had a very nice chat at a party with a Nokia employee. I asked him about Nokia’s relative scarcity in the U.S., and he said quite frankly that the problem was Nokia’s management’s opinion of their company. Being the world’s largest cell phone maker can give you some strong opinions about yourself: if you’re doing so well in the rest of the world, why should you change your tactics to get traction in the U.S., of all places? According to this slightly inebriated man, Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo opened his negotiations with Verizon by stating “We don’t need you.” Not a lot of wiggle room in that position, and there’s really no where to go but backwards. Well, the carriers feel they don’t need Nokia. I guess both opinions are technically correct, since no one is going out of business. But Nokia is losing out on a tremendous market opportunity, and U.S. carriers are losing out on some great handsets.

Whether this anecdote is accurate or not, the fact remains that Nokia is the odd man out in the U.S. I think we can all forgive Apple’s walled garden approach with its iPhone and associated app store because Apple has been a computer and software maker for a long time: this is what they do, and they have the track record to prove that they do it well. I don’t know many people who really take Nokia’s Ovi initiatives very seriously, because it’s not a core strength of Nokia’s. They’re seen as a handset manufacturer, and the expertise therein does not prima facie allow them to build and maintain a kick ass software suite.

There’s a bit over at VentureBeat that digs into this a bit more. The basic premise is consistent with what the Nokia guy at the party told me.

These days, when people aren’t talking about the Apple Tablet, they’re talking about how Apple’s next target is the Big Three gaming companies. The iPhone will topple them! iPhone is a revolutionary gaming device! Well, certainly a little optimism is warranted; the iPhone has inarguably changed the landscape of mobile phones, personal media players, and to a lesser extent personal computers. Why shouldn’t Apple extend its holy sovereignty to gaming?

It already has, in fact. But Apple has come kicking and screaming the whole way. The iPhone, you understand, was not meant to be a gaming device, and in Cupertino, Apple’s intentions are paramount. Apple could never accidentally create a platform for gaming; if it wasn’t meant for gaming (or enterprise, or medical use, or reading e-books, etc.) from the beginning, Apple doesn’t want it happening at all. Because if Apple didn’t intend it, it’s outside of the bounds they set into the platform (regardless of how well it works, much like tethering) — it breaks the mold and, ironically, that’s the last thing Apple wants.

It’s no secret that the Apple ecosystem is a gilded cage. It’s a nice cage, and large, and yes indeed that gilding is very attractive by Jove, but all the doors are shut until Apple opens them. If you think otherwise, you’re probably already scrawling some crude flame in the comment section below. Thank you for your insight. Really, though: Macs are a carefully-tended walled garden of semi-delights (to mix several metaphors), and that’s part of why they’re so good at what they do. Attempts at expanding the garden have been made in fits by Apple, with varying success. Serious music production has never really caught on, nor scientific or medical applications, and any real expansions (personal media, mobile, and video primarily) have been engineered by Apple and not third parties. Why should it be any different for gaming? If Apple doesn’t do it, no one will. And Apple’s not going to do it.

But this is all getting rather vague. There are more substantial objections to an Apple expansion into gaming than my half-baked theories on their corporate philosophy. I’ll just enumerate them here in list form. I’m using the iPhone as the basis for these, but the points apply to the tablet without serious modification.

Hardware
The iPhone isn’t a gaming machine. It’s a smartphone. This produces limitations which are for some invigorating, and for some troublesome. For instance, you’ll never see a decent platformer on the iPhone. FPSes are awkward. RPGs take up too much space. You’re essentially limited to casual games and things like tilt-to-control racers. There are some notable exceptions; John Carmack loves the platform, for instance, and will probably be making some interesting stuff. The iPhone may be suitable for some games, but it wasn’t built for them, and that makes a difference for Apple.

Battery
Part of the hardware objection, but worth noting on its own, is the fact that battery life would be off-the-charts bad. How long can you really play a high-quality title on the iPhone? An hour maybe, before you’re down to 25% battery? Remember this is also your lifeline to email, the web, and so on. Unlike a DS, you can’t afford to let it run down. A portable game system needs to be as efficient as it can, and the iPhone is already an energy hog. No one wants to be tethered to an outlet to play their favorite handheld. And the thing already explodes when you use it too hard.

Developers
A few developers are putting out real iPhone games, but where is your Valve, your CryTek, your Rockstar? These are the people who make AAA titles that sell millions and make billions. Ubisoft may outsource some company to make a little Assassin’s Creed 2 clone to cash in a bit on the mobile contingent, but it’ll just be a way to sell the real game. They’re not going to spend $50m to develop a truly amazing game for the iPhone. No one will. Hardly anyone does as it is for existing handhelds (Dragon Quest IX notwithstanding). Apple could align itself with developers, but my feeling is they wouldn’t mix well. Apple is pretty much oil to their partners’ water to begin with due to their iWay-or-the-highway (clever, no?) approach to “collaboration,” and I don’t think that the major game studios would take a shine to it either.

Pricing
Do you see people hitting that “purchase” button when a game costs more than $10? Neither do I. Real games cost upwards of $40-50 when they come out. That won’t fly in an App Store or iTunes environment, where the emphasis is on multiple small, easy-to-swallow buys.

Brand
Apple doesn’t do games. They don’t put out games, they don’t make it easy to play games, they don’t encourage developers to make games for their platform. This is the last time Apple and Mac users were excited about games:

Seriously. Ever since the Great Halo Disappointment, nobody has considered Apple’s gaming enthusiasm as being anything other than a lark. Meanwhile, Nintendo is so completely identified with games that one implies the other in almost any context, Microsoft is hard at work building a gaming platform that dovetails with their entire ecosystem, and Sony is actually gathering steam with the PS3, as its lower price leads more people to find that it actually might be the most powerful and versatile system on the market. Apple struck at mobile phone makers when they were at their most complacent and vulnerable; gaming consoles and companies are stronger and more successful than they’ve ever been. It would be an insanely bad time to take a swat at them.

Content
Pop quiz: what game had the most lucrative launch of all time? If you answered Modern Warfare 2, an extremelyviolent and graphic game being accused of turning kids into terrorists, then you are correct! Apple is already choosy when it comes to what appears on its devices, and the kind of ultraviolence that sells games probably isn’t going to fly. Apple isn’t as positively warm and fuzzy as Nintendo usually is, but it would be a pretty major shift to start pushing games like MW2.

They don’t want to
Don’t you think that if Apple had any inclination to make the iPhone or Mac into a gaming platform, they’d have at least shown a little of that by now? Where’s the gamepad accessory for the iPhone? Why isn’t Apple courting the big developers to get some titles on Macs? There’s no indication that Apple is interested in games except as a class of apps to take a cut on. Almost all game development so far has been driven by the “there’s gold in them thar iPhones” mentality.

They don’t need to
This readership more than any other should be aware of Apple’s solvency in this worldwide financial crisis; indeed they have thrived mightily. The iPhone shows continual growth, they gain a tenth of a point of OS market share every month or two, and they’re making money hand over fist via iTunes and the App Store. Why the devil would they want to get into gaming, a market that would expose all the company’s weaknesses, bring their best hardware to its knees, and complicate their entire strategy — one which is working perfectly? I’m not saying that Apple doesn’t like to rock the boat, but they don’t do it when they stand a good chance of being thrown in the drink.

All that said, Apple does have an increasing presence in gaming. It owes this in no small part to Nintendo, which has popularized casual and mobile gaming to a huge extent with the Wii and DS. The iPhone may take a bite out of the more casual games coming out for the DS, but beyond that I don’t see a major effect. And as long as it’s enough for Apple to make a few bills, they’re not going to try too hard to change that.