In it’s 2012 Q4 results, Facebook made $1.59 billion (£1.06 billion) in revenue, or roughly $0.17 per share. This exceeded Wall Street’s estimates of $1.53 billion (£968 million), or $0.15 per share. Facebook’s Q4 results are up from their Q3 efforts, where they made $1.13 billion in revenue, and a loss of $59 million.

TechCrunch notes that 23% of Facebook’s revenue, roughly $305 million, comes from mobile, an area that Facebook was having difficulty in monetizing. Facebook made $1.09 billion from advertising and $170 million from payments, mostly from games. Facebook also increased the Revenue Per User (RPU) to $1.54 globally, up from $1.38.

Facebook has also announced that they now have more mobile users than desktop, a major milestone in the history of the social network. Facebook also announced that they now have 1.06 billion monthly active users, an increase of 25% year-over-year. Daily active users increased 28% yoy to reach 618 million. Mobile monthly users increased 57% yoy to 680 million.

Facebook spent $1.06 billion, an increase of 82%. Share-based compensation, payroll tax expenses and non-GAAP expenses were up 67% to $849 million.

Facebook now has $9.63 billion in cash and marketable securities.

Facebook’s stock has declined 4% in after-hours trading despite beating Wall Street estimates.

Source: Facebook

After the riots of August 2011 in London and many other cities in Britain, the prevalence of social networking in organising crime became apparent. Whilst many network providers such as O2 pledged to provide any information required by police to carry out any investigations, social networking giant Twitter has always remained very reticent to reveal users’ identities.

Despite many widely-publicised cases of ‘trolling’ and related forms of Internet vandalism, Twitter only provided information to law enforcement agencies once in the second half of 2012, compared to the 25 request it received from British authorities.

In the United States, the country in which Twitter is based, authorities requested information on 815 occasions and those requests were complied with 562 times (at the time of writing).
So why is Twitter so intentionally cagey about handing over information in Britain?

Well, spokespersons from Twitter UK claim that the requests it received were ‘overly broad’, or ones that did not relate directly to the activity of a single account. For example, authorities may investigate a single Twitter user by attempting to collect information about other users with which the user may communicate.

Facebook, however, after dealing with years of privacy disagreements with lawmakers, have staff in Ireland dedicated to working with British police. Twitter however maintains that the methods investigations from the UK use to obtain information take advantage of ‘international treaty arrangements’.

Additionally, unlike Facebook, Twitter has a policy of informing users if they are under investigation, which in the UK (in some cases) can be a breach of legal proceedings.
By nature, Twitter receives less requests than other social networking platforms, due to the public nature of most users’ activities. It is only once an account holder makes a conscious decision to remove information that investigators may send a request, if necessary.

Whilst the importance of privacy on the Internet has never been higher, Twitter should co-operate fully with British law, especially considering the minimal corporation tax it begrudgingly pays in the UK.

On this particular issue, David Cameron had to be very careful. The right-wing media (both blogs, like Guido, and print newspapers and magazines, like The Spectator and The Telegraph) are strongly opposed to the EU and would dish out negative coverage if Cameron appeared too weak on the issue (most have already moved over to supporting UKIP). Luckily, David Cameron had a brainwave: schedule the In/Out referendum for after the 2015 election. Genius!

The timing of the referendum is excellent for several reasons:

- It is highly unlikely that the Conservatives will get back into power in 2015. Because of the cuts that have had to have been made (no matter how essential), people do not like the Tories anymore. George Osborne is seen by many as inactive on cutting back the deficit, with some new figures supporting their claims. Granted, UK voters don’t like quick changes of government (Labour was in power for 13 years, with the Tories going for considerably longer before them) but they may make an exception for 2015. A Guardian/ICM poll suggests that the Conservative sit with just 33% of the vote, while Labour has 38%. Another poll, published by Guido Fawkes, shows 38% are voting for Labour, 27% for the Tories and 17% for UKIP. Because the Tories are unlikely to be reëlected in 2015, the 2017 referendum will never happen. In this morning’s Daily Mail, Cameron was praised for his stance on the EU.

- The supposed referendum — see point one – whips the carpet out from under the feet of UKIP. What is the point of UKIP? To get the UK out of the EU. David Cameron has now negated the main reason UKIP exists. If the Tories will offer a referendum, and have better politics on other issues and are more likely to get in, what is the point of voting for UKIP? None. Some have suggested that UKIP are stealing Conservative voters and a “pact” should be reached. After Cameron’s referendum plan, that will stop. UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, “ridiculed” Cameron, but that is just bluster; Farage knows his party will fade back into irrelevance come 2015.

- In point one I focussed on the media, specifically the right-wing variant, giving Cameron stick for not offering a referendum. The other people who were giving Cameron stick were those on his own benches. Ed Miliband suggested that Cameron was “scared” of his back benchers. This may be true, but he has just gone a long way to pleasing them. There was some suggestion that some Tory MPs would defect to UKIP, but why would they do that now? They can stay with a party that represents their views (or isn’t adverse to them) and not have to face losing their seats in 2015. And Cameron’s ruse worked: he won back his Eurosceptic back benchers.

- Cameron has also pleased some business owners by not appearing too anti-EU. Trade within the EU is essential to the British economy, especially when we’re in the midst of a triple-dip recession. Countries such as Germany have already warned Britain that they will be displeased if the UK leaves the EU. Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, said Germany will “compromise” with the UK to keep them in the EU.

David Cameron’s EU referendum is genius, for many reasons. He has managed to please both the media (left and right), his back benchers and business owners. This wouldn’t normally happen, but I commend you for your political cunning, Mr. Cameron.

Gunfire was reportedly heard on the campus of Lone Star College in the north of Houston. A spokesman for the college, said students had been warned to take shelter.

There are unconfirmed reports of two people injured. News helicopter footage showed ambulances at the scene and police swarming over the campus.

Local officials told local KTRK that two victims had suffered gunshot wounds. Students told the television station that they had heard shots near the cafeteria.

More news in as it breaks.

The rumoured iPhone is reported to have a larger, 4.8-inch screen along with an 8 megapixel camera. The iPhone Plus is expected to be launched alongside the redesigned iPhone 5 — possibly called the 5S — sometime in 2013, along with a 12 megapixel iPhone. The report from the China Times goes into great detail about the manufacture of Apple’s larger iPhone, giving the names and locations of some of the suppliers. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. will take up to 90% (8 million) of the orders for the camera lenses, while Foxconn Technology and Coxon will provide the moulding parts Apple needs.

This isn’t the first rumour of a larger iPhone. Analyst, Peter Misek, suggested that Apple could be building a larger iPhone back in December. Recently, analyst, Brian White, suggested that Apple could be considering launching the iPhone in multiple sizes, supported by the WSJ‘s Mini, or cheap, iPhone report.

9to5Mac are sceptical about the rumoured iPhone Plus, citing Apple’s “Thumb” advert as a reason for Apple’s reluctance to change screen size; arguing that the iPhone 5 is still useable with one hand unlike other phones. Additionally, changing the screen resolution yet again would cause hassle for developers who have recently had to tweak their apps to support the 1136×640 iPhone 5 screen. Apple doesn’t like the release too many products within a short timeframe, unless it’s to support new technology (like the iPad 4′s Lightening port switch), which could be another reason for this rumour to be pure speculation. Companies like Samsung and HTC have histories of releasing multiple products, with multiple CPU configurations and screen sizes and seeing what sticks. Apple, however, releases one product and then sticks with that for a year. If the rumours are true, Apple could be releasing four separate iPhone variants in June: The iPhone 5S (upgrade from the iPhone 5), the iPhone Mini, an iPhone with a 12 megapixel camera and the iPhone Plus. However, this seems unlikely.

The service, which TechCrunch calls “a simplified version of Dropbox”, aims to replace Megaupload which was shut down by the US government in 2012. The service offers 50GB of free space, with the options to pay for up to 4TB of storage.

Storage and pricing:

Pricing of Mega’s storage options:

For comparison, Dropbox offers up to 500GB to “standard” users and anywhere from 1TB for teams. Prices range start at $9.99/month for 100GB on Dropbox, and go up to $49.99/month for 500GB. Google Drive offers up to 16TB of storage, with plans ranging from 25GB for $2.49/month, up to $800/month for 16TB. When compared to Mega, Google Drive comes off worse, offering 400GB for $19.99/month (roughly €15/month) compared to Mega’s 500GB for $13/month. Dropbox does very badly when compared to Mega, coming out at roughly $37 per month more expensive (for 500GB). It’s fair to say that Mega is very cheap.

Speed: 

When Ars Technica were testing their pre-launch version, they were getting roughly 100-250kbps upload speeds. Both Dropbox’s and Google Drive’s upload speeds depend on the Internet connection being used. I can’t find any exact numbers for each, but I should imagine that they’re competitive. Chances are, if you Internet is quick, so will Mega.

Free vs Pro? 

When you sign up for Mega, you get 50GB of free space. This is down from Dotcom’s original 200GB promise, but is still more than Google Drive’s 5GB, Dropbox’s 2GB and even Microsoft SkyDrive’s 25GB. As highlighted above, the “Pro” accounts get you between 500GB and 4TB, depending on how much you need/your available funds. Mega uses Euros, which is strange considering Dotcom is based in New Zealand. Just like the other cloud storage services, Mega can generate publicly available links for your files which allow you to share around your content.

Security: 

Mega is very secure. According to TorrentFreak, Dotcom wants to “bring encryption into the mainstream.” Mega uses a 2048-bit RSA key which will keep your content away from the prying eyes of government officials, for good and for bad. To keep the end-to-end security, Mega works best with Google Chrome — which they call the “most advanced browser currently in existence” — as not doing so would “adversely affect file transfer performance.” The masterstroke of Mega, however, is that all files are encrypted on the machine that uploads them so Mega has no idea what it’s hosting. Gizmodo describes it as a “masterstroke of copyright subversion.” Mega does stipulate that users should stick to their own countries copyright laws.

When you try and share a file, Mega will warn you that: “The cryptographic security of your files depends on the confidentiality of the associated encryption keys. Make sure that you transmit them via protected channels only! Standard e-mail, for example, is not good enough. With that in mind, select one or multiple files in your file manager, then right-click and use ‘Get link.’ A dialog with the public link(s) to the file(s) you have selected will open. You can choose to export each link and key separately or as a single combo link.”

According to Gizmodo’s resident lawyer, Jesse Ma, has said that Mega’s legal notice which exemplifies Mega from any responsibility for the files stored on their servers. Gizmodo have a fairly good run down of how the service works, with a step-by-step guide of how everything works. Gizmodo went on to say: “[Mega is] Megaupload with a file manager”.

Who is Mega for? 

Many have been burnt by Megaupload (none of the files that were hosted could be salvaged after the CIA pulled the plug), so may be cautious when signing up for Mega. Because Mega offers such a massive amount of cloud storage — up to 4TB, with 8TB of bandwidth — for such a cheap price, I can see Mega becoming a hit with small, cash-strapped businesses. Megaupload of old had prestigious users, such as Apple and Rolls Royce on their client list. If Kim Dotcom can convince them to come back, he could be onto a winner.

More can be found out about Mega at Techmeme.

Lala was an online music site founded by Nguyen, allowing members to create online playlists with uploaded tracks, stream music on a one-time basis and talk to their friends about what they’re listening to (as Ping was such a runaway success for Apple…).

Owing to a placement deal with Google (as well as partnering with them to create Google Music), Lala found itself at the top of many music-related searches. As obviously no such deal would ever be reached between Apple and Google, Lala was effectively robbing sales from rival service iTunes.

Nokia offered a small sum (around $10 million) for the company around 6 months before the Apple acquisition. Disgusted, Nguyen contacted Google, stating that an offer had been made and time was limited for them to act – unbeknownst to Google was Nguyen’s grave dissatisfaction with Nokia’s offer. Google tried to play safe, offering a similar lowball offer to test the water, losing its opportunity.

Within hours Nguyen organised a meeting with Apple executives at Jobs’ Palo Alto home, granting him an audience whom he believed to take him seriously. The rest is history:

In late November [2009], Nguyen was seated at the dinner table in Steve Job’s home on Waverly St in Palo Alto. Also present were Eddy Cue and Tim Cook and other Apple executives. Steve led the conversation while eating a beet salad:

“I’m going to give you a number, Bill, and if you like it, let’s do it and just be done with this whole thing. Okay?” Bill agreed.

Jobs passed a piece of paper to Nguyen and Bill nodded. The deal was done.

Jobs had offered Nguyen an amount a staggering eight times greater than Nokia’s initial offer. Whilst it pales into insignificance when compared to Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram, 80 million dollars passed via scrap paper over a dinner table is hardly a sum to be sniffed at.

Apple’s dominance has been especially prominent in the UK recently, after the closure of three major UK brands.  The first to buckle was Jessops, which sold photography equipment such as camera film and DSLR lenses. Jessops was founded in 1935 by a man called Frank Jessop and was going strong until it slipped into administration in early 2013. Since Apple released the iPhone in 2007, phones have increasingly become our first port of call for photography. The first 3 iPhones were severely lacking in optical technology, sporting just 2 or 3 megapixels. When the iPhone 4 arrived, everything changed. For the first time, reviewers stopped moaning about the iPhone’s shoddy camera and praised it as a potential DSLR killer. Companies such as Jessops, who dealt exclusively in camera equipment, began to get worried as Apple slowly dominated the markets they had commanded for so many years. Back in 2009, Jessops narrowly avoided closure through a stock swap with HSBC. In 2013, however, the iPhone’s prominence in photography fields is clear; just take a look at the most used camera on Flickr, for example. Because the iPhone doesn’t need any accessories to take great pictures (expensive lenses, tripods etc.), companies such as Jessops didn’t have a way of building off the iPhone’s success, and so they have died.

Next is HMV. Established in 1921, HMV (His Master’s Voice) is one of, if not the, oldest record shop chain in the UK and has been experiencing some turbulent times, leading to their descent into administration in early 2013. During 2011, HMV announced a 20% drop in profits across the UK and Ireland (£3.4 million down to just £386,000 in Ireland). HMV wasn’t killed by the iPhone, however. HMV was killed by one of Apple’s most profitable — yet quietest — enterprises to date: iTunes. Steve Jobs unveiled iTunes in 2001, to mixed response. Having worked very hard to get US record labels onboard (read his biography for details), iTunes started at a slow pace with many preferring physical CDs to virtual copies. Now, things are very different. In 2012, iTunes alone recorded $1.7 billion in revenue, while HMV predicted just £10 million in profit for the same period. Actual CD sales numbers (beyond the fact that they “fell sharply“) have not been released, but I’m sure it’s a long way off the 140 million downloads iTunes received for Q1 2012. Services such as Netflix and LoveFilm (which is owned by Amazon) have eaten into HMV’s movie sales business, with Amazon taking the rest of the failing CD market. While Amazon has been around longer than iTunes (originally selling books, and then moving onto other things), I believe that iTunes — and the simple nature of music downloads — for the real reason HMV fell, taking with it many millions of pounds of unsold stock.

The next casualty is Blockbuster. Established in 1985, Blockbuster rode the video renting wave, up until it filed for solvency in early 2013. In 2010, Blockbuster was in profit, making £4.56 million. However, even in 2010 turnover was dropping, down 10% to £262.8 million (Both of these figures are UK sales). In America, Blockbuster made $13.9 million on a revenue of $334 million, placing operating costs at a staggering $320 million. In 2009, Blockbuster posted a massive $569 million loss, before it filed for a bankruptcy auction in March 2011. This figure is made even more insane when you consider that Blockbuster only handles DVDs, unlike Apple who makes and ships millions upon millions of products and handles huge data centres. But it was Apple (as well as streaming services such as Netflix and LoveFilm), and their cheap-to-rent film service on iTunes that toppled the once-mighty Blockbuster. Apple currently allows iTunes users in 42 countries the ability to rent — and buy — movies. Blockbuster, however, is only available in 17 countries worldwide, with approximately 1000 stores in the US. The other negative of buying from Blockbuster is late fees; iTunes has no late fees, as the time is only charged from when you first start watching the film or TV show. Blockbuster can’t offer that service as it is impossible to calculate when you start watching. A service like Netflix or LoveFilm also have no late fees, as you never “own” any of the content – but then with crazy copyright laws, do you really ever own any digital content?
Whilst some of Blockbuster’s downfall may fall to Netflix/LoveFilm, the lion’s share goes to iTunes, which offers a far more popular and arguably easier solution.

The three examples above are just some of the companies that Apple has driven to insignificance in the UK, and many other examples exist. Companies such as Microsoft have been battered by the rise of mobile computing, with Apple’s current marketshare far exceeding Microsoft’s. Even other companies, such as IBM, who do not directly compete with Apple, have succumbed to Apple’s gigantic lead (IBM’s market cap is $217 billion, while Apple’s is now around $476 billion).

Some analysts have predicted that Apple is entering a long, slow decline – which may be true; but they’ve changed the face of technology forever.

In an interview with Bloomberg (via The Verge), Sculley said: “Apple needs to adapt to a very different world [...] As we go from $500 smartphones to even as low, for some companies, as $100 for a smartphone, you’ve got to dramatically rethink the supply chain and how you can make these products and do it profitably.” Sculley went onto praise Samsung, saying: “Samsung is an extraordinarily good competitor. The differentiation between a Samsung Galaxy and an iPhone 5 is not as great as we used to see.” Sculley has obviously forgotten that Tim Cook is a master at supply chain management.

Tim Cook can be forgiven for not taking his advice, as John Sculley saw Apple’s share price drop from $80 to just $32 at their lowest point.