Facebook cites Google+, Twitter among rivals, says growth will slow

Facebook Inc. is king of the social media world now, but the tech giant is looking over its shoulder.

In its S-1 filing Wednesday, Facebook said its business was "highly competitive" and that the competition "presents an ongoing threat to the success of our business."

"We face significant competition in almost every aspect of our business, including from companies such as Google, Microsoft and Twitter, which offer a variety of Internet products, services, content and online advertising offerings, as well as from mobile companies and smaller Internet companies that offer products and services that may compete with specific Facebook features," the company said.

Facebook said it also faced competition from "traditional and online media businesses for advertising budgets" as well as social networks such as Google+ and regional sites. Facebook said some of its current and potential rivals "have significantly greater resources and better competitive positions in certain markets than we do."

"These factors may allow our competitors to respond more effectively than us to new or emerging technologies and changes in market requirements. Our competitors may develop products, features or services that are similar to ours or that achieve greater market acceptance, may undertake more far-reaching and successful product development efforts or marketing campaigns, or may adopt more aggressive pricing policies," the company said. "As a result, our competitors may acquire and engage users at the expense of the growth or engagement of our user base, which may negatively affect our business and financial results."

Facebook also said it expected its growth rates to decline in the future. It said annual revenue grew 154% from 2009 to 2010 and 88% from 2010 to 2011.

"Our user growth and revenue growth rates will inevitably slow as we achieve higher market penetration rates, as our revenue increases to higher levels, and as we experience increased competition," Facebook said. "As our growth rates decline, investors' perceptions of our business may be adversely affected and the market price of our Class A common stock could decline."

Here's the S-1 filing.

RELATED:

Facebook files for IPO

Wall Street clicks 'like' on Facebook IPO

Facebook says ticker symbol will be FB, annual revenue $3.7 billion

-- Andrea Chang

Twitter.com/byandreachang

Photo: Facebook's chalkboard wall at its new campus in Menlo Park, Calif. Credit: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

Facebook says ticker symbol will be FB, annual revenue $3.7 billion

Facebook Inc. finally filed its long-awaited S-1 on Wednesday afternoon and revealed lots of juicy details about the company. The social media giant also disclosed its ticker symbol, FB, but did not say whether it would be listed on the Nasdaq or New York Stock Exchance -- it could be weeks or months before that is determined.

Here's a quick rundown of Facebook's pertinent numbers, according to the filing: 

Users: 845 million, of which 483 million are daily users

Annual revenue: $3.7 billion

Operating income: $1.8 billion

Profit: $1 billion

If you'd like to dig through the filing yourself, you can find it here. Keep checking back for more updates.

RELATED:

Facebook IPO: 'FB' on Nasdaq or NYSE?

Wall Street clicks 'like' on Facebook IPO

Facebook IPO: Could Facebook be worth more than $100 billion?

-- Andrea Chang

Photo: A worker at Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park. Credit: Paul Sakuma/AP Photo

Facebook IPO: 'FB' on Nasdaq or NYSE?

Questions, questions, there are so many questions surrounding Facebook's expected initial public offering.

Of course, the main question is when will the world's largest social network file its S-1 paperwork for its IPO. Well, this much we know — it isn't happening this morning as was widely expected.

Kara Swisher, over at the website AllThingsD, bluntly called the salivating tech press out on their expectation of an early Wednesday IPO filing (with a little help from Samuel L. Jackson). Swisher reported that her sources say Facebook's IPO will arrive Wednesday afternoon at the earliest. So it'll arrive today or it won't — got that?

But other questions abound too. Such as how big will the IPO be? For months rumors have pointed to a Facebook IPO of about $10 billion, which would place the company at a valuation of about $100 billion. But on Tuesday, the website International Financing Review reported that Facebook is instead planning on an IPO worth about $5 billion instead.

Like Swisher, the IFR gave itself an out in case $5 billion isn't the number after all, stating the while $5 billion is "less than anticipated" the IPO "could be increased to satisfy ultimate investor demand."

Another question is where Facebook's stock will trade — the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. Both Bloomberg Businessweek and the New York Post have documented the two stock markets essentially fighting to lure Facebook.

So what's at stake for the NYSE and Nasdaq? "Winning it means more fees, a boost in trading and the chance to link their brand with the largest social networking site in the world," Bloomberg Businessweek said.

"It's a very heated battle," the New York Post quoted Larry Tabb, founder of the capital markets advisory firm Tabb Group, as saying. Tabb told the Post that competition between the two markets is too close to call. So far, Facebook hasn't said where it's shares will pop up when they do.

Another question, and one the Post says it has an answer to, is what will Facebook's ticker symbol be — Fbok, FBK, Book, FceB? According to the newspaper, it won't be any of those. Instead, it will be "FB," the Post says.

RELATED:

Wall Street clicks 'like' on Facebook IPO

Facebook reportedly suspends share trading ahead of IPO

Facebook IPO: Could Facebook be worth more than $100 billion?

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

Nathan Olivarez-Giles on Google+

Facebook.com/nateog

Twitter.com/nateog

Photo: A door sign at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif. Credit: Paul Sakuma / File / Associated Press

Facebook IPO filing reportedly due 'as early as next week'

Facebook's initial public offering has been anticipated for months and is speculated to be worth as much as $10 billion whenever it arrives.

And right about now, that's the biggest question for the world's largest social network -- when will the IPO filing arrive?

According to a Friday report from the Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, Facebook could file for its IPO "as early as next week."

When next week? The Journal says "Facebook could file papers for the IPO as early as this coming Wednesday, but that timing is still being discussed, said a person familiar with the matter."

Facebook, for its part, hasn't said when its inevitable IPO will arrive, but the rumor mill is in high gear.

On Wendesday, multiple reports said that the Menlo Park, Calif., company had temporarily suspended trading of company shares on private markets so it could tally up just how many shareholders it has -- a move sometimes made ahead of an IPO.

The IPO is expected to be the largest of the year and possibly the decade and, as noted by the Times' Jessica Guynn and Walter Hamilton, it could turn as many as 1,000 Facebook employees into millionaires. Facebook has more than 800 million users worldwide and it's expected to also reach 1 billion users soon as well.

RELATED:

Wall Street clicks 'like' on Facebook IPO

Facebook reportedly suspends share trading ahead of IPO

Facebook IPO: Could Facebook be worth more than $100 billion?

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

Nathan Olivarez-Giles on Google+

Twitter.com/nateog

Photo: Facebook's thumbs-up "Like" icon is displayed on a sign at the company's new campus in Menlo Park, Calif. Facebook hopes to accommodate over 6,000 employees on the new campus, which is spread out over a million square feet of office space. Credit: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

#TwitterBlackout: Tweeters protest nation-specific blocks [Updated]

Twitter faced a growing backlash on Friday, less than a day after it announced that it can now block specific tweets from being published in specific countries that legally require such censorship.

On Friday, a day after the country-specific plan was announced, #TwitterBlackout and #TwitterCensored were trending topics on the hugely popular social network.

In the case of #TwitterBlackout, thousands of users from around the world threatened to boycott using the service on Jan. 28, with the hactivist group Anonymous among those calling on tweeters to skip the site for a day. The group Reporters Without Borders issued a letter on its website to Twitter's executive chairman, Jack Dorsey, asking him to "reverse a policy that violates freedom of expression."

The trending topic #TwitterCensorship was filled mostly with tweets from users complaining that Twitter shouldn't be censoring any of its users. Fear over increased censorship also was widely expressed, as was some frustration as some believe Twitter's new policy may result in less censorship,  not more.

In the past, Twitter only withdrew a user's tweet globally -- meaning the entire world wouldn't be able to see a tweet if the site censored it. But now, the San Francisco company has built a tool that allows them to censor tweets just in the country that calls for the censorship, but others outside of that nation will be able to view the message share on the service.

Twitter said Thursday in a blog post that it doesn't want to censor anyone's tweets but legally has to do so in certain cases, such as France's and Germany's ban on "pro-Nazi content."

The company also said it has teamed with the free-speech and online-rights website ChillingEffects.org -- an online partnership between the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics -- to document who is asking for a tweet to be censored and why. Such notices will be published at chillingeffects.org/twitter.

Jillian C. York, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of international freedom of expression, argued in a blog post defending the company that the move doesn't "represent a sea change in Twitter's policies."

"It's been difficult to comment on the move given the extreme reaction by Twitter's own community," York said. "Lots of 'I told you so' from the conspiracy theorists who think that this is because of Saudi Prince Alwaleed's stake in the company, compounded by the #occupy crowd continuing to claim their hashtag was censored in Twitter's trending topics made me want to avoid the subject entirely."

But, of course, York doesn't avoid the subject.

"Let's be clear: This is censorship," she said. "There's no way around that. But alas, Twitter is not above the law. Just about every company hosting user-generated content has, at one point or another, gotten an order or government request to take down content. Google lays out its orders in its Transparency Report. Other companies are less forthright. In any case, Twitter has two options in the event of a request: Fail to comply, and risk being blocked by the government in question, or comply (read: censor).  And if they have 'boots on the ground', so to speak, in the country in question?  No choice."

Nonetheless, York said she understands why people are angry.

"Twitter has previously taken down content -- for DMCA requests, at least -- and will no doubt continue to face requests in the future," she said, referencing Twitter blocking tweets in the past to follow DMCA copyright laws. "I believe that the company is doing its best in a tough situation…and I'll be the first to raise hell if they screw up."

[Updated 3:03 p.m.: Twitter updated it's blog post on the censorship changes in response to the user backlash seen over the last day.

The company said that it believes "new, more granular approach to withheld content is a good thing for freedom of expression, transparency, accountability -- and for our users. Besides allowing us to keep Tweets available in more places, it also allows users to see whether we are living up to our freedom of expression ideal."

Twitter also answered threee questions it says it has been asked since Thursday. The questions and answers from Twitter:

Q: Do you filter out certain Tweets before they appear on Twitter?
A: No. Our users now send a billion Tweets every four days -- filtering is neither desirable nor realistic. With this new feature, we are going to be reactive only: that is, we will withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.

As we do today, we will evaluate each request before taking any action. Any content we do withhold in response to such a request is clearly identified to users in that country as being withheld. And we are now able to make that content available to users in the rest of the world.

Q: What will people see if content is withheld?
A: If people are located in a country where a Tweet or account has been withheld and they try to view it, they will see a alert box that says "Tweet withheld" or "@Username withheld" in place of the affected Tweet or account.

Q: Why did you take this approach, and why now?
A: There's no magic to the timing of this feature. We've been working to reduce the scope of withholding, while increasing transparency, for a while. We have users all over the world and wanted to find a way to deal with requests in the least restrictive way.]

ALSO:

'Don't Be Evil' tool alters new Google search results

Twitter can now censor tweets nationally, rather than globally

Twitter blasts prominence of Google+ in Google's revamped search results

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

Nathan Olivarez-Giles on Google+

Twitter.com/nateog

Images: Screen shots of Twitter users complaining about Twitter's new nation-specific censorship policy. Credit: Twitter

Twitter can now censor tweets nationally, rather than globally

The wings of some Twitter users may be clipped a bit less going forward.

The San Francisco-based company said Thursday that it will now be able to censor tweets in specific countries that ask it to do so for legal reasons, rather than having to block tweets globally as before.

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression," the company said in a blog post. "Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content."

Up until this point, Twitter was only able to censor tweets worldwide, which means nobody would get to see a blocked tweet, the company said.

"Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country -- while keeping it available in the rest of the world," Twitter said. "We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why."

When a tweet is blocked in a country, a message will appear stating that the tweet has been withheld in that nation alongside a link that explains the reason as to why the tweet was blocked.

"We haven't yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld," Twitter said. "As part of that transparency, we've expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page, http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter."

Twitter says in its help center that the ability to block a tweet in a specific nation will allow it to "respect our user's expression, while also taking into consideration applicable local laws."

RELATED:

'Don't Be Evil' tool alters new Google search results

Summify flocks to Twitter to help users discover, filter content

Twitter blasts prominence of Google+ in Google's revamped search results

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

Nathan Olivarez-Giles on Google+

Twitter.com/nateog

Images: Screen shots of what blocked content will look like. Credit: Twitter

Google+ now open to teens, with a few security tweaks too

Google+ opened up to teenagers on Thursday, a move that Google no doubt hopes will help it challenge Facebook as the social network of choice.

"Teens and young adults are the most active Internet users on the planet," said Bradley Horowitz, Google's vice president of products, in a post on his Google+ page. "And surprise, surprise: they're also human beings who enjoy spending time with friends and family. Put these two things together and it's clear that teens will increasingly connect online."

While minors will now be able to use Google+, the experience on the social network won't be exactly the same for them as the 18-and-older crowd. Google has made a few privacy and security changes with teens in mind that Horowitz said will make Google+ a more ideal network to use for sharing and connecting with friends than other services.

"Unfortunately, online sharing is still second-rate for this age group," he said of teenagers. "In life, for instance, teens can share the right things with just the right people (like classmates, parents or close ties). Over time, the nuance and richness of selective sharing even promotes authenticity and accountability. Sadly, today's most popular online tools are rigid and brittle by comparison, so teens end up over-sharing with all of their so-called "friends.' "

The ability to share on Google+ to specific "circles" of friends is a start Horowitz said, but the social network is also giving users "control over who can contact them online. By default, only those in teens' circles can say hello, and blocking someone is always just a click or two away."

Google+'s Hangout video chats will also be tweaked for teens. "If a stranger outside a teen's circles joins the hangout, we temporarily remove the young adult, and give them a chance to rejoin," he said.

Previously, Google+ was only open to users who were 18 years old and up. Now, Horowitz said, anyone who is old enough for a Google account of any sort is old enough for Google+. And in all but Spain (14), South Korea (14) and the Netherlands (16), that age is 13.

Facebook, which boasts more than 800 million users, is open to anyone 13 and older. Google+ has about 90 million users, the tech giant said earlier this month.

RELATED:

Google plans to merge more user data across its products

Google+ continues battle with fading user interest, data say

Google engineer goofs, tells whole world that Google doesn't get it

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

Nathan Olivarez-Giles on Google+

Twitter.com/nateog

Image: An example of the prompt a teenage Google+ user under age 18 will receive whenever someone they don't have included in a contact "circle" on the social network joins in on a Hangout video chat session. Credit: Google

Is Facebook 'Subscribe' for real? Booming new traffic explained

As their Facebook "subscriber" lists have spiraled upward -- into the thousands and tens of thousands in recent weeks -- many journalists have looked on in awe and wonder.

Executives at the social media behemoth say the "Subscribe" function, introduced in September, has instantly become a hugely popular feature. It allows the public to follow journalists, artists and political figures without taking the more personal, and potentially intrusive, step of "friending."

The manager of the Journalist Program for Facebook said in a posting Wednesday that subscriptions have jumped more than threefold since November for a sample of 25 journalists around the country. Vadim Lavrusik, the program manager, suggested that the exponential growth -- CNN weather reporter Bonnie Schneider somewhat suddenly has 72,000 subscribers -- is a reflection of the "organic discovery mechanisms" built into the social network.

Journalists have alternately expressed happiness (any audience expansion is a good thing) and skepticism over what's behind the booming Facebook Subscribe numbers.

Linda Thomas, a morning news anchor in Seattle, put out a series of Facebook messages trying to determine why her following on the site had suddenly leaped to nearly 5,000. Media analyst Jim Romenesko responded:  “Subscriber (and LIKE) spam is a huge problem for Facebook. I have 14,000+ Facebook subscribers and guess that not even 25% of them know my work and have any interest in it.”

When I asked Romenesko why he was skeptical that new subscribers were real,  he said it was partly the fact the newcomers to his Facebook page seemed to have no connectedness to his other friends and subscribers. Many came with oddball names, like the one that appeared to be a takeoff on  "Adolph Hitler."

Facebook reportedly suspends share trading ahead of IPO

Facebook Inc. has reportedly frozen the trading of its shares on secondary markets through Friday, a move that might be made in preparation for the company's expected initial public offering.

Buy and sell orders can be made, but the world's largest social network won't approve or reject any transaction Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, according to a reports from both Bloomberg News and the New York Times, which each cited unnamed sources.

Officials at Facebook were unavailable for comment on the reports Wednesday, but for months speculation has been rampant over just when the Palo Alto company would sell stock on public markets for the first time.

As we've reported before, Facebook's IPO, whenever it comes, could be as worth as much as $10 billion, which would place the social networking giant's market value at more than $100 billion.

The move to temporarily suspend trading might be taking place so Facebook can get a count on just how many shareholders it has among employees, investors and traders who picked up company stock on private secondary markets. Or the freeze may be attributable to Facebook preparing a pre-IPO prospectus of its financial information, Bloomberg said, noting that companies don't want secondary-market investors trading stock with the prospectus out before going public.

RELATED:

Like it or not, Facebook's Timeline will be mandatory

Facebook IPO: Could Facebook be worth more than $100 billion?

Report: Investment banks compete for lead role in Facebook IPO

-- Nathan Olivarez-Giles

Nathan Olivarez-Giles on Google+

Twitter.com/nateog

Photo: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg shows off the Timeline view at the company's F8 developer conference in September in San Francisco. Credit: David Paul Morris / Bloomberg

What if solar storms knocked out the Internet?

 

The likelihood is remote, but there's a chance that a solar flare like the one that disrupted the Earth's electromagnetic field Tuesday could be responsible for the temporary demise of the Internet -- or at least your ability to access it.

Don't believe us? Well, in 1989 electrical ground currents created by another solar storm made their way into the power grid of the Hydro-Quebec Power Authority, causing 6 million people to lose electricity. Elevators stopped working. Office buildings went dark. Engineers in Northern America were worried the blackout could travel down the Eastern Seaboard, although that never came to pass.

The U.S. government has since invested in research that has improved the design of electrical systems to make them less vulnerable to the effects of a solar storm. Still, we thought it was an interesting exercise to imagine what would happen if we were forced to live for a few hours, days or even weeks in a world without Internet.

Here are our top five predictions.

1. Self-promotion would become gauche again. Somewhere along our journey to total digital dependence -- maybe around 2007 or 2008 -- we accepted, as a society, that when it came to managing our Internet persona, it was clearly self-promote or perish. Did your kid do well on the SATs? Tell your 256 friends on Facebook all about it. Got a new project going at work? Tweet it loud and proud. Got a big story dropping in Vanity Fair? Email everyone in your address list. But in a world without Internet, where you have to look someone in the face while bragging, all this 'look how great I am' stuff might start to feel weird again.

2. Remembering who directed a movie would be a major project. Instant access to information through Wikipedia, IMDB and even Google has made it weirdly easy to answer any pop culture question that occurs to us at absolutely any time. If the 1986 film "Labyrinth" came up at Christmas dinner, you could figure out who directed it with just a few taps on a smartphone. But in a world without Internet, that same question could keep you guessing, or arguing, all night long.

3. Deal hunting would become a sport again. We are drowning in a daily deluge of deals. Gilt Groupe, HauteLook, Groupon, Blackboard Eats -- those are just a handful of sites that entice Internet users to save money by spending money on fancy local restaurants, Juicy Couture clothes, pricey sunglasses and spa treatments. But in a world without Internet, knowing which nail salon was giving 50 percent off a mani-pedi would take actual leg work. You'd have to really want it to find it.

4. Collecting would take effort. In today's world, deciding to start a collection of Art Deco jewelry, or mid-century pottery, or tea pots, or door knobs or Persian rugs with animals in the design is as simple as going on EBay and forking over cash. But in a world without Internet these collector gems could be found only by combing through Goodwills and tag sales. Stinky, time consuming and frequently unrewarding work.

5. You'd hear a lot fewer Apple rumors. In an online news cycle that demands constant updating, unsubstantiated rumors that Apple's next iPad might have better resolution than its last iPad is considered a major news story. In a world in which we had to typeset our stories by hand, pay for the paper they were printed on and the ink that they were printed with, well...you'd probably hear only about one Apple rumor a week.

ALSO:

Solar storms may cause dropped calls on cellphones

Apple reports record sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs

Google plans to merge more user data across its products

-- Deborah Netburn