In defense of Facebook

We spend a lot of time on our phones, and I am guilty of that as well, but I don't think spending time on the phone is as bad as people make it out to be.

A common complaint I hear is about Facebook. Tech novices typically say something along the lines of "Why do people share things or send messages in Facebook? Haven't they heard of picking up the phone and talking to people?" Firstly, a Facebook message is cheap for most people as it uses negligible internet data and most phone plans have free social networking (including mine, Amaysim) compared to the phone call which costs most. Economically it makes sense to use Facebook to communicate.

Then there is the argument that face to face communication is better. I agree. When you are face to face with someone, you can see, touch, smell, and do things with them right there. Skype or Hangouts don't come close to physical interactions. However, my experience is that when I am more active on Facebook I also spend more time physically with people as well. Facebook does not replace physical interaction but complements it. It is easy yo understand why. Meeting up with some people is hard. Unless you see then often because you live in the same house or you work together, you have do a lot to meet with them physically, such as getting dressed, driving, and taking public transport. Often you just cannot be bothered and the friendship dies. However, Facebook lowers the barriers. It allows you to communicate, share, and set up events easily. For those friends you don't see much, it allows you keep in touch and keeps them in your mind so that, if you do meet then physically, you don't feel like strangers.

Facebook is not to blame for burglary

The Age has published an article titled The problem with oversharing: why burglars like you using Facebook. The article suggests that if you posts something on Facebook that burglars will know exactly where you are and, if you are not home, they will go into your house and rob it.

IT SEEMS harmless enough: announcing your holiday plans on Facebook or uploading that dinner party photo to Twitter. But according to cyber safety experts, such posts are a gift to burglars and stalkers. ''Not only are you telling me where you are, you're telling me where you're not,'' says cyber safety consultant and former police officer Susan McLean. ''And I could get that photo, run it through a program and find out exactly where it was taken.'' One New South Wales family learnt just how dangerous this can be when they were robbed at knifepoint recently, hours after their daughter posted a photo of her grandmother's savings - in cash - on Facebook. Just before midnight, two men broke in and demanded to speak to the girl, who was not home. They then stole money and property from her terrified mother.

It is certainly possible that you can reveal your location by posting pictures to Facebook, but how Facebook differs to a website is that it is not open to the public unless you allow it to be. Only people you approve to see the pictures can see the pictures you post. And if your friends are the ones robbing you, you should not be approving them on Facebook to see your photos anyway. If you don't know whether your friends are burglars or not, posting a picture on Facebook is no different to if you handed a physical photo to that friend, only Facebook is far cheaper and efficient. The problem therefore is not Facebook but that you shared photos with a friend who you shouldn't have.

Facebook phone is a good idea

There is an article on The Age titled Facebook smartphone? Dumb idea that criticizes the idea that Facebook may create its own line of smartphones.

The article states that there is not much money to be made in smartphones. According to the article, there are two ways of making money in the smartphone industry: the Apply way, which involves creating a phone that is worth $150 and then selling it for $800, thereby making huge profits and making Apple one of the biggest publicy owned companies in the world; the Android way, which involves creating a phone at a cost that varies from $100 to $800 and selling it for only a little bit more, thereby making small profits.  The article assumes that Facebook will opt for the Android way and maybe use the free and open Android operating system or create its own operating system and gain market share by heavily subsidizing the phone and lowering its cost considerably. Facebook intends to make money by gaining large market share and then putting ads on the phones.

I don't think this is a bad idea. However, the article states that this is a poor idea because Facebook is already integrated in most Android and iOS phones. This may be true but Facebook does not control the prices of these phones. Rather, Apple, Samsung, HTC, and so forth control the prices. If Facebook makes a phone, it can subsidize heavily and undercut the rest.

I wouldn't mind buying a supercheap phone and have ads on my Facebook. I'd rather see ads on my Facebook than pay more money on a phone. Comparing smartphones with 1GHz processing power only, currently you can buy a iPhone 4S outright for about $800. You can buy an HTC Desire HD smartphone with 1GHz processing power for $380 outright and unlocked. Suppose Facebook offered a smartphone that was only $150 outright and unlocked with Facebook installed with ads. I certainly would buy it. In terms of value for money, it makes sense. Anyone who is smart with money will do the same things. Facebook will steal customers from Apple, Samsung, and HTC phone users and make more money from advertising revenue. Sounds very smart to me.