Why Facebook is blocked in China, but still accessible

7

October

2016

No ratings yet.

We all know that when we fly to China we will use our mobile phone much less, because we can’t get access to the well-known media platforms like: Instagram, Facebook and the New York Times. Have you ever asked yourself: why is Facebook blocked in China? Well, I will explain to you briefly.

China has a communistic regime and the local government wants to have full controls over its citizens, as a typical characteristic of the communism. That is exactly the reason why Facebook is blocked. According to the local authorities, Facebook does not fit with the local law. Of course, there are reasons for why the platform does not fit the regularities. First of all, Facebook is afraid for riots in the country, caused by perceptions from outside China. They agree with the fact that when many non-Chinese people complain (or give a negative opinion) about the government, the locals will agree with these opinions, which can lead to revolts. And secondly, the government can’t control the content in the social media platform. This does not mean that China hasn’t any social media platform, but they are all controlled by the government. If Facebook would give the Chinese authorities full access to the platform, then it would be legally accessible.

Luckily, many people have find ways to enter Facebook. Via proxy-sites are citizens still able to join world’s most popular platform with all their features and photos. Hopefully, these are the first step to a national wide Facebook authorization.

Remarkably, not the whole country is blocked from international social media sites. Since summer 2013, Facebook is accessible in the Free Trade Area in Shanghai for two reasons. Firstly, to make foreign investments more attractive and, secondly, to connect China better with the Western world. For now, China does not have expand the legal access of Facebook beyond the 28 square miles of the Shanghai area.

How do you think about this? Does Facebook need to give access to media platforms like Facebook to the whole country?

Source: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/042915/why-facebook-banned-china.asp
Source: http://www.nu.nl/tech/3583308/china-staat-facebook-toe-in-vrijhandelszone.html
Source: http://nos.nl/artikel/423549-facebook-ondanks-verbod-populair-in-china.html
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2431861/China-lifts-ban-Facebook–people-living-working-small-area-Shanghai.html

Please rate this

RTL beats Netflix? Or is it the other way around?

7

October

2016

5/5 (1)

While television viewing rates decreases in the Netherlands and the number of on-demand viewers increases rapidly, RTL The Netherlands (RTL for short) tries to stay competitive in the battlefield of the Dutch television.

With the entry of Netflix in the on-demand markets, most TV broadcasters see a decrease in viewing rates. This leads to a decrease of advertisement revenues and could lead, in a worst case, to an exit of the TV broadcasting market. At the moment, 1.5 million people in this country have a Netflix account and so contribute to Netflix’s increasing revenues and market share. While speculators agree that Netflix is market leader in the online movie and series rental industry, RTL tries to beat the competition.

RTL has made plans to stay competitive in this shifting market. RTL’s idea was to make a digital video streaming platform. This platform enables visitors to watch RTL’s own content. Think in this case about series RTL like Baantjer and Gooische Vrouwen. Besides these series, the platform enables you the watch RTL’s programs which you probably missed on live television. And additionally, RTL will buy externally produced movies to increase the content to the platform. Most of RTL’s content are Dutch productions and these are mainly focused on the Dutch market. For now, if you would like to watch a series or program you will pay a fee of €0,99 to €3,99 for each episode.

If we compare this to Netflix, which offers series and movies (own productions and bought content) which are available to you for a fixed amount of €7,99 up to €11,99 per month (depending on the number of devices). Besides this, Netflix is focused more internationally. They will reach a broader audience and are, in this way, able to make a greater revenue. This enables them to be more flexible in their spending. Investments in one country can be financed by profit from another country.

In my opinion, RTL tries to compete with Netflix, but focuses on a different niche market by providing different content. I think RTL is making a great step forward in surviving in this rapid changing market. The only side note I would like to point out is about RTL’s revenue model. Netflix offers content for a fixed amount a month and enables you to watch as much as you want. RTL, on the other hand, asks you to pay for each episode. By paying for each episode, the account would feel much more expensive to me which could force me to watch large numbers of videos.

How you think about this? Is broadcaster RTL able to compete with video streamer Netflix? Does RTL need to keep certain things in mind, like the revenue model which could force people to enter RTL’s platform?

Source: https://www.techzine.nl/nieuws/75554/rtl-gaat-concurrentie-aan-met-netflix.html
Source: http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/bijna-een-vijfde-nl-huishoudens-heeft-netflix-abonnement–1139147
Source: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/08/08/rtl-wil-voorsprong-nemen-op-netflix-1281086-a318343

Please rate this

Technology of the Week – MOOCs are disrupting education

17

September

2016

5/5 (3)

With an increasing number of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), the popularity of MOOCs is rising. A MOOC is an online course with an open character, which supports lifelong networked learning. Unlike the fixed position of a school, a MOOC is built for everyone with internet access. Hence, MOOCs give everyone the possibility to learn.
MOOCs provide flexible, accessible and high quality courses at low cost (or even for free) for people that are interested in learning, which is disrupting the education industry. Higher education institutions and private investors have shown great interest for the rising popularity of MOOCs. Both parties want to either expand their existing brand or enter the education market. Therefore, it is highly likely that in the future the number of traditional courses will decrease, while the number of online courses will increase rapidly.
Coursera, EdX and Udacity are a few big players in the MOOC industry. Coursera’s, which is market leader, value proposition is to provide global access to the world’s best education. They use peer assessments to grade the student’s performance. Coursera sells certificates to students who successfully pass for their courses. They also offer learning programs at universities which combines traditional offline teaching methods with Coursera’s online platform. Coursera was one of the first to enter the market, resulting in a first-mover advantage.
The second largest player is EdX. This firm is founded by MIT and Harvard, which strengthens their market position. EdX is an open source tool, which allows others to create courses to make education available to a wide range of people. The open-source element of EdX is what distinguishes them from the others. EdX makes revenue by opening their platforms to universities and receives a part of the profit from the partner. Moreover, they provide help to universities by producing courses for them.
Udacity, which is developed by Stanford University professors, is trying to position itself on the rightside of the tail. They collaborate with corporates to further develop employees’ skills. Udacity focuses on computer programming courses. They currently offer free courses, but invite students and partners to pay voluntarily. Their revenue model has been shown to be their weakness. Currently, they have 4 million registered users and 11,000 paying students.
Considering those three competitors, we can see that the long tail effect applies to the MOOC industry. The long-tail effect occurs because of demand-side drivers as well as supply-side drivers. One could argue that Coursera is left on the long-tail scale, offering courses to a large audience. Udacity is on the right side of the curve, offering a smaller number of courses to a niche market. EdX is in the middle of the two. In this light, the future of MOOCs are quite interesting. We foresee a more dispersed market, where niche products become widely available due to the increasing customer demand. This would result in a longer tail. It is up to the firms who offer these courses to monetize them.

Please rate this