Next week, a group of US university students will unveil their own social network, Diaspora, that aims to compete with Facebook, and features enhanced privacy.
However, World Wide Works Strategy MD Steven Ambrose says it is not viable in the developing world and possibly not in the developed world either.
Facebook's constantly-changing privacy settings have been the subject of much controversy internationally. While Facebook stores user information on central servers, Diaspora will operate like a peer-to-peer network, meaning that users store their own data on their own computers.
In order to make use of Diaspora, a user will install open-source software on his or her computer. This software will enable the user to connect to the network and share the data they choose to share.
Diaspora, therefore, requires two things that Facebook does not: a computer and an Internet connection that is always (or at least frequently) on, as a user's profile will only be available when they are logged on to the network using the software.
According to Ambrose, only 12% of South Africans have access to the Internet and of that 12%, only 4% have broadband. This means that only 4% of South Africans will be able to make proper use of Diaspora. For the other 8% with Internet access, the service stops being a real-time, always-on offering.
The mobile many
In Africa and the developing world, mobile Internet is far more prevalent. A study conducted by World Wide Worx last year found that 60% of urban cellphone users in SA have access to the Internet through their phones.
Diaspora, however, cannot function on most cellphones, as it requires specific software. Mobile applications usually also require access to a central server, which is exactly what those behind Diaspora are hoping to avoid.
“Diaspora's business case is not particularly sound,” says Ambrose. “In order to be a killer app in this day and age you have to have mobile access.”
He explains that, even in the developed world, where always-on Internet is the standard, people are still increasingly using their mobile phones to access social networks.
“It's much more convenient and immediate, and means not being tied down to a desktop or notebook and having to constantly search for Wi-Fi signal.”
Privacy
The key difference between Facebook and Diaspora hangs on the belief that the majority of people are concerned about their privacy. A belief, which according to Ambrose, is flawed.
“Privacy is mostly an industry and analyst debate. The average user does not seem to care.”
He points to the widespread use of Google Apps, which enable people to post their entire lives online. He also notes the “Quit Facebook Day” campaign, staged earlier this year, which, despite widespread publicity, had little impact.
“The average person is just happy to be socialising online,” he says. “Privacy issues are, therefore, not a clear rationale for a person to join another site, especially since their friends and contacts are not there,” says Ambrose.
However, KPMG services managing partner Frank Rizzo says that a recent study conducted by his company, the Consumers and Convergence Survey, showed that, on average, South Africans were more concerned about privacy than their global counterparts. However, only 69% of respondents saw privacy as a real worry - compared to 80% who were anxious about security.
He said that the local awareness can be attributed to the banks, which have been driving strategies to educate customers about these cybersecurity issues. However, despite this education, Rizzo believes that privacy concerns alone are not enough to make South Africans use Diaspora.
“From my observations, as soon as an application requires a user to install stuff on PCs, or Smartphones, they become resistant. They may care about their privacy, but not enough to put in that kind of effort,” says Rizzo.
Facebook has a user base of around 2.9 million in SA, according to Ambrose, and he believes that, without enabling mobile, Diaspora cannot reach the critical mass needed in order to gain traction here.
“Why would someone use another service to do the same thing that an already established service offers, which their friends are already using?” he says.
Even globally, Ambrose does not believe that a service that is just another Facebook, only more complicated to access and without the wide user-base of connections, will be successful.
Share
