Dear Zuck, Fuck!

From this weeks Economist –

I hope you don’t mind me calling you Zuck. We barely know each other, although I did once bump into you whilst walking in College Terrace in Palo Alto.

The thing is, Mark feels too familiar, and Mr Zuckerburg way too formal. Besides I am a veteran entrepreneur and you are way younger than me so Mr feels, you know, a bit much.

Zuck feels just about right, and the good thing is it rhymes with fuck! — which is really pertinent given what I am about to say.

Well, Zuck, it seems as if your Messenger team has been closely watching what I have been doing with I mean, wow! watching isn’t even the word for it. Snooping, Spying, is more like it. And clearly they must have liked what they saw because they made a copy. It’s a big surprise because nobody there even told us how much it appealed to them.

In case you think me paranoid….here is a screenshot from the new web version of Messenger at It’s from my personal page.


Facebook’s web app

And here is the screen shot from my page.

Screen Shot 2016-04-09 at 7.06.36 PM

Now, Zuck, a fair person might say that it’s easy for two pages to look similar, especially if their goal is similar. the color schemes may just accidentally be the same. The 3 column layout also. And perhaps the message box at the bottom is just, you know, “obvious”. And I am a fair man, so I’ll give you that. But then it just gets plain spooky.

Here is a blurb from the web site.

Unique Chat URL — and Click-to-Chat button for everything else

So you can engage your customers everywhere, not just on your website.

Use your chat address on social profiles, social ad campaigns, direct mail, business cards, signage, restaurant menu, product packaging, brochures etc.

At our core we provide a unique URL that points to a person or a business. Mine is

And here is what you say at the Facebook page for Messenger:

Usernames help people find businesses on both Facebook and Messenger, so they can connect with and message the businesses they’re interested in more easily. Because each username is unique, they also help people to identify your exact business, even if you have a relatively common name.

Mine is

Firstly, I want to thank your team for their embracing of our core concept. of course they can’t go as far as us. We have integrated our offering into the DNS (the domain name system), so anybody can create a unique chat ID using their domain name. My incubator, archimedes labs, has done this and so you can reach me at Being FaceBook the team want to keep things in-house and so their offering is inevitably more limited. But that said, it’s close to an exact copy — even down to the idea.

But it doesn’t stop there,

Today we’re also introducing Messenger Links, which businesses can use to make it fast and easy for people to start a message thread with them. Messenger Links use a Page’s username to create a short and memorable link ( that, when clicked, opens a conversation with the business in Messenger.

On our web page we show our business customers this exact functionality. widget shown at


Linking a Unique chat ID from a web page to a mobile chat client

This is close to an exact idea copy… but again there is a difference. My Facebook Unique chat ID cannot be clicked on by a non-Facebook member. if a user clicks it they are asked to log in with their FaceBook ID — like this:


Facebook Messenger: Blocked unless you are a member on the other hand allows anybody (or if this is a business, any customer) to click a chat link and be in a chat with a business owner or ID owner. Try it. Click here — — and you will see this:


A live web chat with a ID owner

No request to log in at all. A truly open chat ID available to a customer no matter what their membership status. Of course we do ask for a name and email address on a first chat, but that is to enable communication in case the chat receiver cannot reply right away. And it is not a registration. It is simply temporary for that chat.

So apart from the non-support for the DNS (domain name system), and so a user’s own internet identities; and apart from the requirement to log in to FaceBook, both of which limit your offering, it feels like a total rip-off of our idea.

Don’t get me wrong, we are flattered. And I am a big fan of your fearless acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which made Facebook relevant to the mobile era. We are not really concerned at a competitive level either. Open chat IDs are in many ways more attractive than Facebook ones for any self-respecting brand, and the DNS is clearly the right place to integrate this functionality. Besides, the version you copied dates back to April 2015. We are close to our next version and it is a significant step forward in this space. So this is not about the competition.

But, it would have been nice to chat ahead of time. We are a small team of 6, and I’m in Palo Alto and after all I’m only a click away at So, really Zuck. What the Fuck!

BTW if you read this and want your own chat ID head over to Use the code “12MonthsFree” and start enjoying “Click to Chat” for yourself or your business.

The impact of mobile growth on web advertising. Is Android bad for Google?

alternate textGoogle and Facebook can’t turn off the mobile deluge

I just posted on TechCrunch. The article focuses on the Facebook S1 filing and in particular on the risks section that covers the growth of the mobile internet and its potential impact on the web business model.

Facebook itself has been very clear that its advertising revenues are exclusively derived from its web site, and also that an increasing amount of its usage comes from mobile in general and smart phones in particular.

Buried in the article is this point:

Google’s present – and Facebook’s future – involves the painful fact that the very success of mobile platforms in helping human beings be productive, on the go, has a negative impact on the desktop-based advertising programs of the past 10 years. Mobile growth impacts web advertising revenues, except of course for Apple who make money from hardware and software and so benefits from these trends. The reason is simple. We do less ad-centric activities on mobile than we did on the web. And we are less likely to click away on an ad when we are focused on a specific goal on a largely single window device.

The implication of this point is that, absent an advertising solution for mobile, Google’s success in distributing Android, as well as the rise of the iPhone, are directly damaging to Google’s legacy business model. Now, it isn’t as if anybody can turn the mobile internet off or slow its growth. So Google has no option but to be a significant player in mobile, and has no option but to try and drive the revenues it derives from mobile harder than the pace of slow down in web based revenues that result from the trend. But to accomplish that Google, and Facebook will need to innovate in advertising. Web based display ads, text ads and others are really not able to translate effectively to mobile without seriusly undermining the user experience.

This is one of the areas we are focused on at