Consumer internet and privacy: Weighing in on the Path controversy
A few years ago when I was in Oracle, our entire product team got a mandate to make the an older version of an application “accessibility compliant”. This included a huge number of super boring tasks like adding alternate text to images so that the visually impaired who rely on screen-readers could better understand the web page contents. In the consumer tech world, where our everyday engagement with personalized socially curated content relies heavily on cool and awesome sounding buzzwords, compliance is dirty word. In the enterprise world however it is taken seriously, even though developers hate the boring tasks and processes surrounding this concept.
I woke up this morning to the controversy surrounding the Path app’s handling of users’ contact data, and it set me thinking about the state of consumer tech in general. Here’s a brief snapshot of recent controversies which have generated quite a few storms in the tech community tea-cup:
- Curebit (YC, 500 Startups): too lazy to design their own app 1
- Path, Hipster and a bunch of other iOS apps: uploading contact directory to their servers without permission 2
- Facebook ($5 billion IPO): countless controversies, most recently about photographs staying on their CDN years after they were deleted 3
- AirBnB: Lead generation on Craigslist; identity and physical theft in a host’s home and stupid handling of the issue subsequently 4
- Zynga ($2 billion IPO): blatant cloning of popular games, and whole lot of other ugly stuff 5
- Pinterest: non-disclosure of affiliate links 6
This list goes on and on. Name any big or popular consumer company and there’s probably a story from the past year about a transgression that, at best, was a minor “violation of users’ trust” and at worst, completely illegal. What’s interesting, though, and this is just a guess, that all that hate these companies generate on communities like Hacker News doesn’t correspond to any major dent in their growth. I’d love to see some stats if my guess is wrong.
It is quite possible to evolve a compliance framework which certifies apps with ratings across major areas like privacy, security, user experience and so on. The details of this framework are hazy in my mind, but the idea is to have a universally trusted and recognized “badge” which rates apps after a combination of automated and manual checks. Storing passwords in plain text? Poor rating. Dark UX patterns? Bad rating. Great privacy compliance? Awesome. The rating should be analogous to “Verisign secured” for financial transactions.
However, regardless of how well this framework functions, at the end of the day if the market and consumers don’t care enough to punish bad behaviour, then it probably isn’t bad enough to raise such a hue and cry. At the end of the day the ends seem to justify the means for all these companies and if we, the people, let them get away with it, we shouldn’t be complaining.
(CC photo from Dave Makes on Flickr)
Now Playing: early stage startups
“Sir we’re hosting a startup fair in our college to bring together startups and VCs. As part of our annual college tech fest we host a startup showcase where startups can network with other startups, angel investors and VCs. You can set up a stall to demo your product…”
Hold that befuddled look on your face, there’s more.
“As part of this TV show we feature a startup, and then later match it with an investor who evaluates and comments on the pitch”.
Raise your hands if you’re an early stage startup that’s heard these before. Now those who’ve happily participated in these events stay, rest of you can go out and play.
By now you’ve figured that I’m not a fan of academic institutions and/or television news networks “supporting the startup ecosystem by facilitating interaction with investors and mentors, enhancing the visibility…”. Let me start by making a few confessions relevant to the discussion:
- I’ve participated in college level B-Plan competition and cleared a few levels during my undergraduate studies (with totally cooked up executive summary and financial plans).
- I’ve organized a B-Plan competition in the same college for an annual event (where I selected the qualifying entries while still in my first year).
- I’ve appeared on a national television startup pitch programme.
Startup fairs in academic setups are driven by a bunch of enthusiastic but ignorant students. They don’t know a thing about the startup grind or how investors work, just like they don’t know a thing about anything else (remember your student days?). They want glamour, material for their resume’s “Extra Curricular Activities” section and a chance at a sexy internship. On a scale of “Destructive” to “Life changing”, the amount of influence college startup fairs have to an early stage startup’s traction or funding would fall in the middle, around “Useless”.
Let’s talk about TV. A question for GMAT aspirants:
Business news : ? :: Music channels : Hookups and breakups
Answer: Startup reality shows.
There are hosts of shows which ask startups to pitch to investors, and walk away with “visibility and mentorship”. A few lucky startups might walk away with tangibles like cash or return air tickets (taxes extra).
I’m no fan of these shows, but hey, startups can always use some PR, right? Here’s a little scenario you might want to consider:
The girl doing your startup story understands your pitch as well as you understand girls. Worse, she might decide your valuation as part of her script. “50 lakhs sounds uncool, make it 4 crores.” True story. Your early stage startup’s bogus valuation is going to be aired on national television. Your pitch is going to be edited behind your back. The mentors, investors and celebrities in the show, generous with their time as they are, may or may not know the complete story behind you and your startup. Yet that doesn’t stop them from offering their invaluable advice and tell you why your valuation is too steep or product lacking in depth. It might go the other way too — they heap so much praise that you go home to a dozen wedding proposals (NOT a true story).
Truth is TV folks are no more qualified to project and evaluate startups than hackers are to create TV shows. Their goal is entertainment. They like sexy, sensational, glamourous stuff. Between pre- and post-production they’ll find a way to maximize that.
If you do decide to participate in these fairs or shows, do so with the right expectations. When everything is over, they’ll ask you for references. If you refer me, remember this, I will find out, and one day you’ll wish you hadn’t.
CC photo on Flickr by 1llustr4t0r.com
