Apple product evolution

Disclaimer: this is not a Wardley map!!

This is a graphic representation of the products commercialized by Apple, adding some information that helps us to gain perspective.

I have classified them by the nature of software technologies, simplifying it too much.

This is the graph:

  • Each product has been represented since its first release till 2015, coloring it by the 4 stages mentioned in Wardley maps (genesis, development, product, basic service).
  • I added the at the bottom the period where Steve Jobs and Tim Cook where the CEO of the company.
  • Revenue information (taken from, no more than 2005)
  • The number of acquisitions done by Apple by year (on the table) and classified by the nature of the technology on the graph.


If you know something about the history of the company, you know that we can see two different ways of leading the company, as the personality and purpose of the CEOs where significantly different. We can argue that what Apple is Today is thanks to what Steve Jobs did during his years of dedication to Apple, but we can also say that what Apple is Today is thanks to what Tim Cook is been doing during these last 9 years.

We can see that since 2013, the number of acquisitions done by Apple have increased in numbers. We can think that the company size was bigger so they were better positioned to do these purchases.

Some people says that Apple is not innovating, the argument I listen is that they really are not adding any new product to the market since so many years. But when you look at the type of companies they are acquiring, you can notice that the investment on Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality is there. It does not mean that they will succeed, but they are doing their job to invest and innovate.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I will write it down. I think that Steve Jobs created superior products and things that changed the way the electronic devices were used. I think nobody rejects this point. But I have the opinion that Tim Cook did an excellent job as CEO to provide value to its shareholders and turned Apple in a machine of doing money quarter by quarter. I think this is not well recognized as the job done by Steve. Nowadays, for instance so many people recognize the impact of Satya Nadella in Microsoft, but no at the same level that Tim Cook is doing in Apple.

Some people have told me, why Warren Buffett came in into Apple in 2019 and not before. Was this a mistake, or it was done on purpose? I would like to say that the people in Berkshire Hathaway are not stupid, and I have not the answer, but I can figure out that Apple demonstrated to them that they are transitioning from product company to service company where the users consume products and services as a basic thing in their lives. Berkshire loves cash cows and Apple now is that cash cow that they love to have in their portfolio.

Nokia Product evolution

This is not a Wardley Map, but a graphic representation of the products commercialized by Nokia during last 20 years.

I have classified them by major software type of technologies, simplifying it too much.

I’m not taking into account the hardware and semiconductor technologies that they really are so much important, and the reason to do it is that I wanted to focus the analysis on software technology giants.

Nokia serves me as reference, so once you see the other graphs, you can compare.

On the chart you can see:

  • Product evolution of the main families of mobiles that Nokia sold.
  • You can notice how they jumped from their own OS to Windows and then to Android. These moves meant to Nokia a huge effort to keep themselves into the competition.
  • The chart in blue is the revenue from 2005 (I cannot obtain more years from


Reaching Cloud Velocity: A Leader’s Guide to Success in the AWS Cloud

I bought this book because I knew there were some mentions to Wardley Maps, and I was curious about how they were used by AWS people.

When I received the book I was a little bit disappointed, as the book just contain a chapter where they introduce Wardley Maps as part of the business transformations they are used to perform in different companies they work with.

But here is the point, the whole book is an explanation of how to transform your company into a cloud based company, focusing on all aspects.

This left me a little bit bitter taste too, as Transformation and Transition Manager, I have done this type of work and all was very familiar to me, and my expectation was to find something completely different that let me learn.

The book is a good guide of all the aspects that you should have into account when doing a transformation such it. And it contains specific target models about how the target operating model can be and should be managed.

As in all transformations, this is a business topic not a technology topic, it was always the case.


Idea de minicomunidades

De donde viene la idea

Desde que empezó el confinamiento llevo tiempo pensando en como canalizar la energía de Javier y tratar de que los periodos de confinamiento, ya sean por Covid, porque está resfriado o por cualquier otra cosa, pues tenga algo donde poner el foco y fundamentalmente en que pueda interactuar con sus amigos. El concepto tal y como lo pienso es como una mini-comunidad enfocada, un learning guild (gremio de aprendizaje).


  • Vision: crear una comunidad donde los niños interactuen y aprendan, inicialmente haciéndolo alrededor de los legos y el inglés.
  • Valores:
    • Aprender jugando.
    • Poner en práctica buenas prácticas de Montessori.
    • Adaptar los contenidos a la edad y las inquietudes individuales de los niños.
    • Fomentar los vínculos adulto/hijo: participando en ello el adulto.
    • Solo admitir gente que quiera estar involucrada.
    • Si el padre no habla inglés, es una oportunidad para aprender o mejorar su nivel de inglés.
    • Entender el ciclo de valor de la información: datos -> información -> conocimiento.
  • Metedología:
    • Usar legos e inglés.
    • Definir un contenido inicial e ir evolucionando conforme se vaya aprendiendo de que funciona.
    • Tener un canal de comunicación con los padres para tener feedback.
    • Que tenga una plataforma interactiva: que permita acceder a audios, a material visual, que permita hablar a todos los niños (probablemente al principio spanglish y después menos spanglish).
    • Tener un grupo virtual donde se cuelga material (audio y visual) para los niños, y donde los niños pueden volcar fotos y audios. Es importante que los amigos se escuchen los unos a los otros.
  • Obstáculos: resistencia de los niños a hacer ciertas cosas, el tiempo de los padres
  • Medidas: los niños les quitan el teléfono a sus padres para hablar en inglés con otros amigos, los niños proponen temas o cosas de las que quieren hablar o jugar, los niños.

Conceptos de la mini-comunidad

La comunidad

  • El tamaño: debe ser idealmente de 2 a 5 niños,
  • El vínculo: los niños de la comunidad deben conocerse en la vida real, idealmente son amigos del cole, amigos de otro círculo o familiares.
  • Los niños deben tener edades similares. Bueno, si son amigos, probablemente esto se organice de manera natural de esta manera.
  • La dificultad de la interactuación es un obstáculo, algunos niños quieren interactuar en presencial, pero a veces no es posible (resfriados, confinamientos, viajes), el uso de una comunidad virtual también nos puede ayudar a los padres a que los niños adopten buenos hábitos de las tecnologías.

Los ciclos temáticos (o ciclos)

  • Los ciclos temáticos inicialmente durarán una semana.
  • Esa semana se incide en ese ciclo.
  • Los ciclos temáticos no se cierran, un niño puede querer poder seguir haciendo legos de otros dinosaurios más tarde y querer expresarlo (I have built a new small dinosaur that eats vegetables and only weitghts 50 kilos).
  • Es normal que algunas temáticas sean más atractivas y tengan más atención de ciertos niños de la comunidad, y también es lógico que algunas se trabajen durante la primera semana, pero que no despierte el interés. Esto hay que ir adaptándose.
  • Se puede interactuar en las temáticas siempre.
  • Si una temática es interesante, yo la alimentaré con nuevos audios en inglés para que los niños escuchen cosas nuevas sobre ese asunto en concreto (idealmente el guía es quien hace esta potenciación de la interactuación)

El guía

  • Cada comunidad tendrá un guía, que conoce a todos los miembros de la comunidad.
  • El guía tiene que tener conocimientos de educación básicos y estar especializado en algo en concreto. Por ejemplo, si la comunidad quiere un profesor de inglés dando clases y consigue uno y lo convence de trabajar como guía, pues perfecto.
  • El guía tiene que tener un compromiso y la comunidad también, el dinero es el catalizador universal que ajusta este compromiso.
  • Al guía se le paga, está haciendo un trabajo, y está creando contenido.
  • El guía puede decidir hacerlo gratis, esto es una decisión personal. La comunidad tiene que estar de acuerdo con esto (cada uno hace con su tiempo lo que desee).
  • El guía tiene que participar en la comunidad como uno más, aprender como uno más y que el resto de los miembros lo vean (en la medida de lo posible) como uno más.

El entorno o plataforma

  • Grupos cerrados para cada comunidad.
  • La seguridad de la información es lo primero: tiene que ser robusta en este sentido y los miembros de la comunidad tienen que entender como de seguro es y que medidas de seguridad dependen de ellos para asegurar lo máximo la seguridad y la privacidad del contenido que se publica.
  • Tiene que ser accesible por el ordenador y por el móvil.
  • Cada niño tiene un usuario (que le permite el acceso a la comunidad), cada padre o tutor tiene un usuario (que le permite acceder al backstage).
  • Cada comunidad tiene un espejo, donde los padres hablan, dan feedback y se proponen nuevos temas que se puedan aprender.
  • Cada periodo (inicialmente una semana) se propone en la comunidad un tema, y se habla del mismo.


  • El entorno tiene que fomentar la jugabilidad y en cierto grado la interactuación de los niños.
  • Los niños pequeños no usarán el entorno, pero conforme vayan creciendo, llegará un momento donde ellos lo usarán, esto hay que tenerlo en cuenta.
  • No estoy seguro que si hacer feedbacks en audios para los niños y hablar de sus trabajos y de las cosas positivas que se ve en ellos podría ser una manera de alentar lo que han hecho (en inglés for sure).

Principios y buenas prácticas de cada comunidad

  • los padres tienen que completar una formación básica del uso de la filosofía del proyecto de comunidades.
  • Habrá una lista de principios de base que los padres de cada comunidad tendrán que definir para ellos mismos. Es su comunidad, ellos tienen que definir que quieren formentar y la manera de hacerlo.
  • Existirá un backstage para tratar todo esto, por ejemplo “backstage: our community lego & english”.
  • Existe un periodo de puesta en marcha (ramp-up community) en el que se pone en marcha la comunidad y se comienza y se sigue la dinámica de la misma.
  • En el ramp-up, al guía se le guía.

La vida de una comunidad

Las comunidades, nacen, crecen, se reproducen y mueren.

  • Las comunidades que existan deben estar activas.
  • Cada comunidad tiene su ritmo. El estándar de una semana por tema puede ser modificado y decidido por la comunidad.
  • El ideal de 5 niños por comunidad fomenta que haya votaciones y acuerdos en los backstages.
  • Las comunidades pueden acabar, es algo natural. Al hacerlo se disuelve la comunidad por completo.
    • La comunidad puede acabar porque la temática ya no tiene sentido.
    • La comunidad puede empezar con una temática y evolucionar hacia otra.
    • La comunidad puede acabar porque los niños crezcan y se vayan a conversar por otros canales.
    • La comunidad puede cambiar de guía.
    • Un niño puede participar en varias comunidades (por ejemplo: “lego & english” y “aprendiendo a programar”), donde como en la vida misma, cada una tiene su ámbito.
    • Los principios de las comunidades pueden ir cambiando conforme a las necesidades, y estas deben estar acordadas por los padres/tutores.
    • Ejemplos:
      • Comunidad creada de Septiembre a Junio para apoyo en matemáticas a unos niños de sexto de primaria.
      • Comunidad de amigos de los dibujos, donde cuelgan sus dibujos e interactuan entre ellos, el guía dibuja y propone cosas a dibujar.
      • Comunidad de aprender a tocar la flauta, donde los niños tocan una pieza básica cada semana dependiendo del nivel, el guía va grabando audios o videos de que hacer.
      • Comunidad de estudio para 2 de ESO, donde los chavales trabajan juntos, comparten apuntes, resuelven dudas, y están guiados por algún familiar.

Casos de uso

Caso de uso 1: “The Argentinosaurious”

  1. Se define un tema: “the Argentinosaurus”
  2. Cosas que pasan antes del ciclo:
    1. Javier y yo preparamos un audio donde cogemos una foto o un lego del Argentinosaurius (con los nombres de las partes básicas del mismo: mouth, legs, teeth,) y en el audio hablamos sobre este bicho, yo en inglés y Javier probablemente repetirá cosas en español y cosas en inglés.
    2. Al final del audio yo preguntaré a los niños si les gustan los dinosaurios, cual es el que más les gusta y les pediré que me hablen de ese dinosaurio en concreto.
    3. Este audio y la foto se cuelga en un hilo del grupo.
  3. Cosas que pasan durante el ciclo:
    1. Los padres acceden al contenido y preparan un momento donde mostrárselo a los niños.
    2. Se pone el audio las veces que haga falta.
    3. Se trabaja con el niño el hacer un lego, un dibujo, algo que le motive alrededor del tema propuesto (cartón, lego, papel…).
    4. Se fomenta repetir algunas palabras escuchadas en el audio, y que ellos se monten una película de lo que están construyendo (creo que los niños lo hacen de forma natural y que si el tema es interesante lo hacen solos).
    5. Cuando lo haya terminado (el mimo día u otro día), se hace una foto de lo que haya hecho y se le pide al niño que hable de lo que ha hecho, de las características de ese dinosaurio, de como lo ha hecho, de cuanto pesa, que exprese lo que le venga en gana.
    6. Se cuelga el audio y la foto en el hilo.
    7. Se le pone al niño el audio para que se escuche y se le valora las palabras que ha dicho en inglés.
    8. El niño puede ver las fotos de sus amigos, y escuchar los audios de sus amigos.
    9. Si un niño quiere responder a otro niño, pues que lo haga, tratando de hacerlo con palabras en inglés (yo lo que le digo a Javier es “Javier, habla en inglés que sino tu grandma sino no te entiende, please”).
  4.  Después del ciclo
    1. El ciclo temático no acaba, pero si tiene una semana donde es el foco de trabajo.
  5. Cosas que pueden pasar en cualquier momento:
    1. Los padres en el canal de backstage llamado “backstage: the Argentinosaurus” dan feedback de lo que han hecho, de mejoras, de ideas…
    2. Existirá un “backstage: ask whatever you want” para dar feedback de cualquier cosa ajena al tema: calidad del audio, mejora de cosas, etc.
    3. El guía será la persona que modere los backstages.
    4. Cuando los niños se puedan ver, se puede quedar con los legos para enseñar fisicamente lo que han hecho.
    5. Si se puede hacer en parejas, pues mejor, 2 padres pueden decidir que una tarde quedan sus hijos y escuchan el audio y hacen la actividad juntos ¿por qué no?.

Dickson’s dots

I have investing some time this afternoon watching this video about types of people:

You can find a lot of information on,

The 4 profiles proposed are called dots: yellow, purple, red and blue. I have saved this summary for my poor memory:

Probably one of the dots is the dominant to you, but more than sure is that you have.

I find this type of things useful for understanding the pre-cognitive behaviors and understanding how to communicate with people better.

Digital sovereignty borders

Coming from the post published by Simon Wardley Digital Sovereignty, I was thinking about some way to look at the situation at the right perspective.

So here they come some initial toughs about what potentially could come.

In my last post Government and Facebook conflicts, I point to some basic conflicts between governments and Facebook. The same exercise can be done with other major companies as Google, Amazon or Apple. But now I would like better to focus on a higher perspective. How these digital models are implemented around the world.

In US we have GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple) you probably would like to add Microsoft, Netflix and other ones, but for this time let’s simplify it.

Then I would like to point the fact that China is implementing these models and the companies that in parallel are doing something similar but in a different way are what is commonly known as BATX (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent and Xiaomi).

Let’s draw some maps

I would like to start with a map copying the idea of Simon where he represents the national sovereignty.

From that map, I was thinking about the borders between the world as we all know and the effect of these big companies. So I would like you to think about a map as this:

These companies are there, they are present in the daily lives of so many people and we see them as “friends”, but they are acting without control and they are invading many basic rights that took years to have: safety (data protection legislative environment…), privacy, civil rights, habits, behaviors.

Right now they are basically doing 2 main things:

  1. Storing tons of data about ourselves in so many ways.
  2. Promote short term dopamine-driven loops to maximize profits.

Right now you can think that they are complex and very evolved activities, but if you look with a perspective of 20 years, the technology that they have today is nuts with respect the amount of innovation that is coming in these fields.

The machine learning and Artificial Intelligence available in 10 years will make us blush.

What are the governments doing?

  • There are some efforts from European Union to punish and change some behaviors of these companies (but right now poor result).
  • The US congress is preparing several initiatives to declare some monopolistic positions (being in preparation).

The only country that reacted to this situation was China, that started copying the US models, and from that point, they have evolved to something different. For instance, if you compare Facebook and Tencent, the evolution of the platforms/services have evolved in very different ways.

In the long term, they are massive destruction weapons, ready to be used when required.

In the 60’s we had the cold war, between western countries and communism countries, right now there are 2 countries building digital weapons. Look at the map in this way:

What are the other lands doing with respect the Digital Sovereignty?

Government and Facebook conflicts

Simon Wardley has first written about digital sovereignty and later he did some comments on Twitter about the moves a company as Facebook is doing.

Simon’s answer captured my attention:

So, first I have done is a short analysis about how Facebook works, decomposing the main components of a huge company as it is. I know, over simplification is not accurate.

Then the basis of the discussion goes around a map that is explained on the digital sovereignty post. Sorry but if you want to understand the next paragraphs you have to spend some minutes reading it.

To define slightly better the conflicts that I have seen I would like to do a small change on the “power” component, dividing it into the classification that is common at least in democratic countries: legislative, executive and judicial.

The use of topographical intelligence in business strategy / Courtesy of Simon Wardley (CC BY-SA 4.0)

This differentiation is important, and we will see later why. Just as a highlight of what’s coming next, the point is that sometimes, the “executive” power is using the digital powers to skip from the physical sovereignty that the citizens of a land have provided to the politicians.

Where can we find conflicts between government and Facebook?

There are thousand of scenarios, and it’s impossible to cover all of them, but I will try to comment some of them. If you have another example, please let me know.

Situation #1, Respect Local Laws: national elections in a democratic country

Let’s put Spain as example (I know a little bit more about some rules here). So have clear laws about how politicians can communicate and persuade citizens, there are laws about freedom of expression and other mechanisms that enable an imperfect but accepted system. Someone could tell me that traditional channels of communication (newspapers, radio and TV) can influence as the same than Facebook on the elections, so let’s try to see this in deep.

In Spain the 24 hours before the voting day politicians cannot advertise themselves. Here the government controls traditional channels of communications stop offering advertisements, but in the internet, you can find volumes of information about the political parties 24×7 and a last minute “news” that expands quickly on the social networks.

The conflict? Facebook and other social networks are invading the land of power, not executing some filters during these previous 24 hours. They can say that are opinions, but the reality is that a lot of this content was there thanks to advertisement that they are monetizing.

Situation #2, Misinformation: US elections in 2016 and the fake news

Here Facebook and other digital channels have the ability to skip a simple rule that the Spanish people gave to ourselves.

In 2016 during the US elections there were in 2016 where it was clear the manipulation done on Facebook platform, even do that Facebook for this 2020 elections they have enabled an action plan where they are removing, highlighting or filtering some of the content published on the platform.

One of the key points where the credibility of the information. A trusted traditional channel of communication have a credibility, and their editors value it as key asset of the company. They can be more aligned to one party than to other, but they will not enable that a third party will publish any information without their control and without checking if this is a credible information or not, basically because their credibility is at risk.

Facebook was not seen as a channel of communication, they saw themselves as a platform where people publish things and they monetize it. At some point the maintain that people clicks “like” or “share” things as an individual act, and that there is not anything wrong on it. The problem comes when someone understands that with enough money and the right knowledge about how the platform works, they can modify the perspective or the perception of something, and we all know that a “lie repeated 1000 times is still a lie” but some people believe it.

A trusted traditional communications channel would have not enabled these fake news.

The manipulation of the platform had several consequences but I would like to focus on one. For this 2020 elections, Facebook have enabled a set of rules to remove, filter and avoid the spread of a publication. The questions that come to my mind are:

  • Who have decided that the filter rules are the right ones? (scope of digital legislative power).
  • How are these algorithms executing these rules? (scope of digital executive power).
  • How are the claims done by an user being judged? (scope of digital judicial power).

The conflict? A private company is exercising executive, legislative and judicial power, over the individuals of a nation.

The digital sovereignty have the same elements of the sovereignty and on this case FB has the upper hand of the power, nor the citizens that gave themselves a framework for living as a collective.

Situation #3 no civil discourse

Kenneth J. Gergen describes civil discourse as the “language of dispassionate objectivity”, and suggests that it requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader. It neither diminishes the other’s moral worth, nor questions their good judgment; it avoids hostility, direct antagonism, or excessive persuasion; it requires modesty and an appreciation for the other participant’s experiences.

  • Do you see something of this in Facebook?
  • How can you do it if you do not know if you are discussing with a person or a bot?
  • How can this be done if there is no control of it?

In a democratic land, if you want to organize a protest, you can call on it, ask for permission to walk on the streets of a city and protest about the ideas you have and being heard by other citizens. There are some laws that tells how you can behave, there is a control of how you do it, and another citizen can claim that some aspect of that protest was against the law.

In Facebook you can organize a protest creating thousand of bot-users, creating and budgeting a campaign, and spreading it in the platform.

The questions that come to my mind are:

  • Who has validated that the virtual protest/campaign is aligned with the law? (scope of digital executive power).
  • How can I demand that some aspect of the protest is wrong? (scope of digital judicial power)
  • Is classifying the only way  to tell Facebook that something is wrong? (scope of digital executive power)
  • If something is proved as wrong, how is Facebook punishing it? (scope of digital judicial power) and how is Facebook avoiding this type of wrong behavior again? more algorithms? (scope of digital legislative power)

The conflict? A private company is exercising executive, legislative and judicial power, over the individuals of a nation.

The digital sovereignty have the same elements of the sovereignty and on this case FB has the upper hand of the power, nor the citizens that gave themselves a framework for living as a collective.

Situation #4 no civil rights

Civil and political rights  are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one’s entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of society and the state without discrimination or repression.

In the space of Facebook’s land:

  • Who does define the civil and political rights of the users? (scope of digital legislative power)
  • Who does take care of these right? (scope of digital executive power)
  • Who does take care of the right execution of these rights? (scope of digital judicial power)
  • Have you read something about this in the terms of service when you create the Facebook account?
  • How the use of Facebook respect the civil and political rights?

Situation #5 lack of data protection

Well, there are tons of discussions and controversy around data protection but the basis is that there is a basic conflict.

The conflict? You do not have control of the data that you give to Facebook, and governments have more or less data protection policies.

Other conflict? They are tracking you in thousand of ways, you just consult the list of patents they have related to this: they control the camera, the microphone, the way you touch the screen, location….

Components I realize that Facebook is acting

In the original map where Simon draws, the one called “the culture map”. The map is a representation of what culture. The positions can be widely discussed but what is important is to realize that culture consists of many components including values, behaviors, memory and other concepts linked to our collective (family, friends, church, supporter group, region, nation…).

Well, I have highlighted some of the components where I think that Facebook is acting. Something that probably can derivate into a discussion for each one of the components.

The use of topographical intelligence in business strategy / Courtesy of Simon Wardley (CC BY-SA 4.0)

I have added to the map a component, “digital sovereignty” that some day everybody will recognize as a valid concept, and later it will just called “sovereignty”, in the same way that now a phone was once a “mobile phone”.

Some words to ponder, consider and debate

You can say: you can individually stop using Facebook!!

And I will reply to you, that your are partially right. As an individual, I can remove my Facebook account, but we live in a society and we belong to collectives that when something new comes we have to accept the positive things that this “new thing” has, and control as best as possible the bad things that the “new thing” has.

When cars became popular, nobody told “stop using cars”, the citizens created rules to live with this new technology, have the benefit of the positive aspects and minimize the bad aspects.

So, one of the original questions raised by Simon is very valid:

how to balance “Me” vs “We” in a modern society?


A short analysis of how Facebook works

This post tries to analyze some aspects of Facebook as a company, so I can confront some values promoted by Facebook and how they enter in conflict with government’s values.

Let’s start looking for capital flows

The first thing is to follow the flow of capital, so first thing I have done is to look into the Q2 2020 quarterly report for investors.

The first thing we can find is that 98% of the revenue comes from advertisement.

These are the KPIs and measures offered by FB and they are considered valid from market point of view:

  • Facebook Daily Active Users (DAUs)
  • Facebook Monthly Active Users (MAUs)
  • Facebook Average Revenue per User (ARPU)
  • Family Daily Active People (DAP)
  • Family Monthly Active People (MAP)
  • Family Average Revenue per Person (ARPP)

I want to remind the main types of cost, so I will save this screenshot here:

Spending time on their platforms is the main thing they measure and what happens there is the second thing we should look at. Where?


I have been reviewing the list of FB´s patents and I have stopped in the second page of patents as there are so many. From the extraction I got:

  • Methods and systems for identifying target images for a media effect
  • Automated detection of tampered images
  • Location based content aggregation and distribution systems and methods
  • Ranking items using a unified model
  • Techniques to promote filtered messages based on historical reply rate
  • Informative advertisements on hobby and strong interests feature space
  • Generating catalog-item recommendations based on social graph data
  • Determining related query terms through query-post associations on online social networks
  • Optionalization and fuzzy search on online social networks
  • Apparatus, method and program for image search
  • Methods and systems for providing user feedback
  • Systems and methods for partitioning geographic regions
  • Dynamic tagging recommendation
  • Automatic personalized story generation for visual media
  • Managing notifications pushed to user devices
  • Systems and methods for filtering page recommendations
  • Systems and methods for filtering page recommendations
  • Predicting reach of content using an unresolved graph
  • Providing social endorsements with online advertising
  • Real-time tracking of offline transactions
  • Systems and methods for selecting content to send to labelers for prevalence estimation
  • Temporal clustering of social networking content
  • Suppressing entity suggestions on online social networks
  • Methods and systems for synchronizing data streams across multiple client devices
  • Systems and methods for suggesting content

Tired of reading patents? …. me too.

I want to focus on some of them:

  1. Systems and methods for recommendation of topical authorities: Systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable media can determine one or more respective topics of interest for at least some users of a social networking system. At least some of the topics can be propagated to at least a first user, wherein the propagated topics were determined to be of interest to users that follow the first user in the social networking system. At least one topic from the propagated topics for which the first user is a topical authority is determined.
  2. Inferring relationship statuses of users of a social networking system: This patent application discusses predicting a set of emotional states using information such as how many times you visit another user’s page, the number of people in your profile picture and the percentage of your friends of a different gender.
  3. Determining user personality characteristics from social networking system communications and characteristics: This patent proposes using your posts and messages to infer personality traits. It describes judging your degree of extroversion, openness or emotional stability, then using those characteristics to select which news stories or ads to display.
  4. Predicting life changes of members of a social networking system: This patent application describes using your posts and messages, in addition to your credit card transactions and location, to predict when a major life event, such as a birth, death or graduation, is likely to occur.
  5. Associating cameras with users of a social networking system : Analyzes pictures to create a unique camera “signature” using faulty pixels or lens scratches. That signature could be used to figure out that you know someone who uploads pictures taken on your device, even if you weren’t previously connected. Or it might be used to guess the “affinity” between you and a friend based on how frequently you use the same camera.
  6. Correlating media consumption data with user profiles: This patent explores using your phone microphone to identify the television shows you watched and whether ads were muted. It also proposes using the electrical interference pattern created by your television power cable to guess which show is playing.
  7. Routine deviation notification : This patent tracks your weekly routine and sending notifications to other users of deviations from the routine. In addition, it describes using your phone’s location in the middle of the night to establish where you live.
  8. Statistics for continuous location tracking: Correlating the location of your phone to locations of your friends’ phones it tries to deduce whom you socialize with most often. It also proposes monitoring when your phone is stationary to track how many hours you sleep.

There are a lot of algorithms that they have patented to protect one of their most valuable assets: their platforms.

The use of these algorithms and the decisions that they are taking show up a lot of

Facebook needs

Let’s start with Facebook needs. Below a summary of needs.

I want to put my attention to “active users” and “behavior’s analysis”, to me these are the two key aspects I would like to review in deep. Some of the questions that comes to my mind are:

  • How does FB keeps the users engaged on their platforms?
  • How does FB keeps the attention of the people?
  • How does FB change the habits and routines of interaction to keep people engaged?

Chamath Palihapitiya answers is: “with short term dopamine-driven loops”.

how dopamine-driven feedback loops work?

Well, this is the basic loop:

How dopamine driven feedback loops work

Some books with more information

All this is more complex that the short summary I have done here, so in case you want more details a book focused on this topic should be a good source of information. For instance:

  • Chaos Monkeys: Inside the Silicon Valley Money Machine’
  • Facebook: The Inside Story (English Edition)

Now I will comeback to the analysis of conflict of values between government and Facebook.