Google Enters eBook Arena

No one should be surprised, but Google finally made a big entrance into the eBook space with the Google eBookstore. They launched yesterday and are promoting the largest selection of eBooks in the world.

Not only are they leveraging their large collection of free books they have been scanning for years, they are also selling popular new releases. They are taking a different strategy from other companies in that they are selling hardware (at least not yet), and are making content available on all devices, with one obvious platform missing - the Amazon Kindle. Users of the Google eBookstore will be able to use read purchased books on any other device (computer, the Nook, Sony Reader, iPhone, and iPad).

Once again, Google is supporting the open format (the ePub standard, which all other platforms have adopted except the Kindle). It will be interesting if this puts any more pressure on Amazon to support this standard, or if they will use their #1 position to maintain a closed device.

any publicity = good publicity on Google?

This weekend's NYT had an interesting article about an online eyeglass company called DecorMyEyes, whose thug-like business tactics and on-line notoriety have helped the business move up on Google's search results.

DecorMyEyes has built up quite a reputation online as a dishonest retailer that not only cheats its customers but also harasses them and makes death threats (seriously). Somehow the countless complaints online about the company have been translating to higher rankings on Google search results and DecorMyEyes has been getting more and more business as a result.

Although the algorithm used by Google to determine the ranks remains unknown, a big factor is the number of links from respected and substantial Web sites. The more links that a site has from big and well-regarded sites, the better its chances of turning up high in a search. Google does not want to disclose the algorithm because it is afraid that people will try to game the system, but it seems that at least one business owner seems to have found a way to do that without knowing the formula. The owner of DecorMyEyes was quoted as saying: “I’ve exploited this opportunity because it works. No matter where they post their negative comments, it helps my return on investment. So I decided, why not use that negativity to my advantage?”

This article seems to raise some important points about the limitations of Google algorithms and how the system could backfire for unsuspecting consumers. We'd like to think that there is less information asymmetry as a result of consumer comments and blogs, but perhaps we still have ways to go. On the other hand, maybe this is the way it should be: Google doesn't make any guarantees about the quality of the site it displays -- it just shows the most relevant sites. It's a pretty democratic process, albeit misleading for shoppers. So what's the solution? What is Google's responsibility in a situation like this?

The Google Netbook: An Enabler

A recent article in the NY Times went over how Google is planning on introducing a Google Netbook in the coming months. The netbook is expected to run on the Chrome OS, which as the article discussed, is essentially the same thing as the Chrome browser. Basically, all of our information normally stored on each individual computer will be stored on Google's servers, accessed via the cloud. Google's strategy is to use these netbooks as another portal towards their services, allowing them to make money off of their primary means: advertising. The Chrome OS-based netbook will run only Google web-based applications instead of its competitor's apps (instead of iTunes, a Google based music software, instead of MS Office, a Google-based office replica, etc.).

The article notes one major issue with introducing a netbook is that the market has already changed in the past year from netbooks to tablets. However, I see a few other issues with the idea of the Google Netbook. If all of our information will be stored on Google's servers, privacy issues will certainly come to the forefront (as if they weren't already). Google will have direct access to a huge amount of critical information. I would imagine companies holding sensitive information on their databases would be a bit skeptical in putting such information on the cloud. Another issue is the attempt Google would be making at locking in users to their Web-based applications. Google has been about opening up the web, allowing their open-source model of application development to push their applications above many of their competitors. However, locking out software on their Google Netbooks will most likely drive away customers who like the flexibility of using different software/applications. It could also reduce the value of Google's applications, as developers for the Chrome OS will have less competition to deal with and thus less motivation to improve since the OS disallows consumers to use some of Google's major competitor's applications.

Can't Decide What to Wear? Ask Google.

Google announced the launch of it's new fashion shopping site, Boutique.com. There has been a lot of news lately of tech companies charting into each others territories such as Facebook with its new messaging/e-mail service. Now Google is going after Amazon and eBay. Online apparel sales are expected to reach $25 billion this year and as more powerful companies with deep pockets like Google are enticed to capture a piece of that lucrative market, things will undoubtedly get interesting.

Google's famous algorithms once again are expected to give the company an advantage. With the help of exclusive designers and celebrities, Google's algorithms can accurately suggest fashion specific to each user's tastes.

Google's (or your?) Social Circle

We have been hearing that Google is trying to build some social networking features over its existing infrastructure. Google's CEO has also mentioned that they are not trying to make another Facebook or another social media website. Here is a sneak peak of what Google  is trying to do in the social media area : Social Search. As more and more people get connected to each other, what people read and recommend online will become a critical part of Google's search algorithms. We've always thought of what Google knows about us. If you have a Google account, please visit this link http://www.google.com/s2/search/social#socialcircle to see what Google knows about your social circle. Many ads that we see in our Gmail inbox or even through Google search are irrelevant. Imagine the power of ads based on recommendations and online behavior from your friends. This will not only be a big plus for the online searchers but also for a great revenue source for Google as it improves its click-though rate for ads. This will be put them in a good position against Facebook who, if the rumors are true, is going to launch email service next week.

Advantage: Facebook

In yet another example of Facebook moving in on Google's territory, the social media behemoth now facilitates location-based advertising through mobile devices (at this time limited to the iPhone).

To my mind, this is a huge threat to Google. As the article mentions, Facebook has tremendous scale. But more importantly, their strategy drives at the heart of how we tend to make purchase decisions. We are by nature social creatures. Our circles of friends and family are probably the biggest influencers of what we buy. Furthermore, many items have their intrinsic value enhanced by network effects - videogames are more fun when you can play them against your friends, books are more enjoyable when you can discuss them with others. And, while many of us have learned to tune out the noise of online advertising, we still pay attention to what's happening with the people we know and like.

White space for content discovery

I found IBM's framework for defining the new business models in the media industry is quite insightful, and reading the complete report made me ponder the changing media stack.



Here's the traditional stack as I've drawn it out. In the traditional world of the lower left quadrant, we've seen that content discovery is a function fulfilled by the content distribution layer. Publishers, movie studios and game developers spend millions to make sure you know about the latest Harry Potter or Grand Theft Auto.







But I'm curious about the content discovery process would work in the other quadrants, and in the "New platform aggregation" section in particular, as we move into the future. My sense is that content discovery will develop into a full-fledged layer of the stack, which will look like this.

And while companies like Google, Facebook and YouTube are already playing a role in content discovery, I think there's still plenty of white space there. Google and YouTube can help me search for content - but I have to be looking for something. Facebook can help me find something even if I'm not looking, but I'm dependent on the tastes of people in my network who post links to content. There's definitely scope for something that will know what I like (or learn, like Pandora does) and trawl the "out there" for user generated content that I will enjoy. Does anybody know of something like this that already exists?

Will Facebook Beat Google in Advertising Dollars?

BusinessWeek's front page article this past week was on Facebook: "Facebook Sells Your Friends." It explores the idea of Facebook as advertiser juggernaut. I thought the article made a really interesting comparison of Facebook to Google:

"I can target my exact audience, rather than trying to come up with a proxy for it," like looking at search terms or which websites people visit, says Belden, who was spending about $4,000 a month on Facebook earlier in the year before he was forced to rein in his marketing expenses because of budget issues. He adds: "If I was bidding on expensive Google keywords like 'solar,' I'd be going against guys with a much larger marketing budget."

Should Google be getting scared? Especially now that Facebook is branching out with the "Log in with Facebook" and "Facebook Currency" options?

Google's Social networking Building Blocks

Here's an article that has useful information on Google's recent acquisitions pertaining to social networking.  According to the article, it has made

five acquisitions in the field: SocialDeck, a mobile social gaming company;Angstro, a social networking search application; Like.com, a social fashion store; Jambool, a social gaming virtual currency; and Slide, a social game maker. It also has a large stake in gaming giant Zynga.

--
Think about these as part of the exploration-exploitation axis and what they could mean in its positioning against Facebook.

25 Years From Now: Why Google Will Outlive Apple

Tim O'Reilly's article on the Internet Operating System talks about a future of horizontal integration vs. vertical integration. Google will ultimately outlive Apple because Google is pursuing an integration strategy which makes Google an integral part of that operating system. Apple's integration strategy makes it temporarily successful in spite of that system, but at the expense of the company's long-term relevance.

As we all know and as O'Reilly reminds us, Apple has successfully pursued a strategy of vertical integration. With iPhone/iPad/iTouch/iPod/iTunes, Apple owns the hardware, the software platform, and the content. But Apple has also cultivated a strong brand - good, clean design, user-friendly, young, hip, intelligent, forward-thinking. The strength and cohesiveness of the Apple brand in people's minds is what has enabled Apple to succeed with a vertical integration strategy. Indeed, the core of any vertical integration strategy in information technology is a strong brand. To the extent that brand assets as powerful as Apple have proven difficult to replicate, full vertical integration will remain elusive to most, if not all, other technology companies besides Apple. This leads to an odd conclusion: vertical integration can never be an industry-dominant strategy in the world of information technology. There just aren't enough truly strong brands among large-scale companies to make it a broad phenomenon.

You could even argue that an essential element of Apple's brand is the company's gadfly, oppositional status - Apple can never be the dominant owner of most of our technological lives because Apple will always need a significant competitor to stand in opposition to. If it weren't for Microsoft being so easy to beat up on, Apple's brand might not evoke the white-hot intensity of feeling it does today.

The conclusion: Apple's success, and the vertical integration strategy so tied to its brand, are unreplicable on an industry-wide scale. Apple has been successful to date, and may continue to enjoy success for a while. But it will not define the industry in the future.

So what about Google? Google has demonstrated true mastery of the art of hedging. This mastery has enabled the company to evolve from super-fast search engine to technology industry idea-fount funded by ad brokering. And this same artful hedging lies behind Google's pursuit of *both* horizontal and vertical integration strategies. Android and Chrome represent the vertical strategy. Android is a software platform for mobile apps, and the Chrome browser is a software platform for web applications. Both platforms show that Google understands that owning front-end layers in the platform can help companies gain strategic advantage through exclusive interaction with more back-end layers. I don't think that Google knows whether this will end up necessarily being a successful strategy long-term. They just know that can afford to make both of these money-losing investments in order to position themselves intelligently should the industry develop in the direct of vertical integration.

But will it?

Never forget who owns the data. As O'Reilly points out, Google has amassed more potentially valuable data than maybe any other company on earth. And in an environment where horizontal integration is dominant, the owner of so much data sits in the catbird seat. In a horizontal world, success isn't about owning all the layers, it's about offering enough value to others within the *same* layer so that you become indispensible. If Google, with its enormous data assets, won't be indispensible to other parties who crunch data and deliver meaningful services using that data, I don't know what company will be.

This is also another way of saying that Google's ownership of so much data and data-collecting capability (which, by the way, Android and Chrome provide in spades) makes the company a critical component of The Cloud (the giant middle layer in a horizontal integration model).

In a world where businesses function more and more as nodes in a network, making yourself a critical component of that network keeps you relevant. Google understands this and is committing resources today to position itself for that emerging world. Apple is merely coasting on the admittedly impressive success of its vertical integration strategy. But this strategy is a sideshow to the growing trend of horizontal interdependence within an ecosystem of services. This is the larger future for which Google is preparing.

Competing in the Courtroom

As a company using advanced technology that is vital to your business model, how vulnerable can you be if you do not have a defensible patent position?

Before today, I had never heard of Interval Research Corporation.

In 1992, Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, bankrolled this tech incubation lab with 100 million dollars. The goal was to create a "research setting seeking to define the issues, map out the concepts, and create the technology that will be important in the future...[pursuing] basic innovations in a number of early stage technologies and [seeking] to foster industries around them -- sparking opportunity for entrepreneurs and highlighting a new approach to research."

Interval Research was shut down in April 2000, but not before it had secured 300 patents, 4 of which are now owned by Interval Licencing LLC, a vehicle that Paul Allen is now using to sue Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Netflix, YouTube and others.

One of these patented technologies allows a site to offer suggestions to consumers based on what they are currently viewing, another allows readers of an article to rapidly find related subject articles. The remaining two are related to what is happening peripherally to a user's main activity, such as flashing video images or updated stock quotes, news or ads.

If the patent infringement can be proved, the damages could be vast.

Incidentally, Amazon has been left out of the list of defendants, even though we know that one of Amazon's practices is to offer suggestions to consumers. I wonder if a strategic deal has been made, or if Amazon has a solid defensible position for its technology that does not infringe on Paul Allen's "patents".

So far, it seems that the defense that the sued internet companies are planning is based simply on the fact that Paul waited too long. It will be interesting to see if that will be enough to fend off the lawsuit.

If Paul Allen had sued a long time ago, it may have been harder to prove the monetary potential of the technology, which would affect the dollar value of settlements.

Here's a copy of the lawsuit filed:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/intervallicensingcomplaint0827.pdf

According to the Wall Street Journal, NTP, Inc, another licence holding company which successfully sued RIM in 2006 for $612 million dollars, is now suing Apple, Google, HTC, Microsoft and Motorola over infringement of 8 patents related to the delivery of email over wireless networks.

I find it very interesting that an innovative company that struggles to develop technology and make it work in the marketplace can remain so vulnerable if their technology can be proven to infringe on a patent held by someone else, and I am curious as to how executives at the likes of Google and Apple would approach innovation, if they know that "patent trolls" - companies that hold patents but don't do further development work - are waiting in the wings to pounce on their hard earned profit in the form of damages.

Hey! You! Get On To My Cloud!

Microsoft, Apple, and Google. It's becoming harder and harder to find an area where they are not on top of each other's every move. While each one has its respective strength, i.e. Microsoft's desktop and business platform, Apple's consumer/entertainment aesthetics, and Google's information management, we haven't seen much in the way of viable direct competition in each other's core businesses, Bing included. Ok, Android is showing some legs. While speculation has run rampant about the world of opportunity at Google's virtual fingertips, Google's foray into music could have truly revolutionary implications in the music industry and beyond.

Apple launched iTunes and the iPod in 2001. In time of music industry turmoil, the iTunes platform grew into a socially and economical stable platform. When the maintsream medium for music went from physical CDs to digital storage devices, it's safe to say Apple was leading the charge. In the last decade, not only has an increasingly large percentage of consumers begun to purchase their music online, a generation of consumers decided to transfer their CDs digital audio files. As this generation (and beyond) have come to access their music via digital audio players, they have been given a choice... Play music they own through an access point on a device where their music is already stored, or pay for a license to stream music they don't own online. Therein lies a limit. What Google has sought for business productivity software, they now seek to do for consumer audio - put it in the cloud. In doing so, it is going directly after Apple.

As shown in the article linked below, Google is seeking to store consumer's music online and provide anytime, anywhere access for a nominal fee. If successful, Google can detach music from proprietary locked devices, capture a world of valuable consumption patterns and connections, all the while collecting a nominal fee. Although they face hurdles in industry sales/licensing, user interface and design, and ever-splintering device support, Google almost certainly makes up for them in the department of engaged consumers and customer insight. Call it rampant speculation if you insist, but Google is betting that they not only have the power to redefine the industry once again, but that they also have the will and a way.

http://fmqb.com/article.asp?id=1953078

Google’s Successful Strategy

Microsoft has been in the products and software business for a long time. They outpaced the competition through their Windows OS platforms and then lived off the clout they held with software developers, since the market was controlled by Windows. Everyone used a Windows OS and so developers were easily swayed into developing for this system, and users were swayed into buying such software. Only in more recent years have they emphasized the importance of cloud-based computed, as evidenced by Steve Ballmer’s vision statement. Apple’s success has come from their stranglehold on devices, such as the iPhone, iPod, and iPad. They have brilliantly created massive network effects through the use of their user-friendly iTunes platform and App store. These network effects for music and applications have brought a once dying company to the forefront of technology.

Google, however, has been ahead of the curve since day one. This can be seen through their mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Google’s success has come from their ability to not only organize data, but collect it, for everyone. As they have transitioned from a search engine to Gmail to everything under the sun, they have progressed through their use of cloud-based services. Now, others have followed this trend in using the cloud, however Google’s advantage in data collection has allowed them to take the lead in several areas, from improving their search engine based on previous user searches to providing more aligned, personalized advertisements to changing Google Maps from a mapping service to a service that also provides advice about locations (where to go, what to eat, etc.) Their mission of collecting and organizing data fits well within a cloud computing world, since this world is extremely malleable and interactive, allowing continuous improvements to applications and services based on data collection.

Why Apple Really Isn't Losing the Mobile Race

Since Google released the Android mobile operating system, observers have carefully watched to see when they would overtake Apple in mobile market share. It seems as if every month a report would come out showing how Google was quickly catching up with Apple and that it was only a matter of time until Apple fell behind in market share. The way it was reported, you would think market share was the only measure of success in the mobile OS industry.

In recent months, Apple has come under ever harsher criticism for restricting its devices to one carrier instead of opening them to all carriers as Google has done. Analysts predict at every product announcement event that “today will be the day Apple opens up the device on Verizon and other carriers”, but they are then surprised when Apple does not make the change.

However, when you look at the Apple’s track record for the past 30 years, people really shouldn’t be surprised by the strategy Apple is following. Apple likes to strictly control its products and partners. Every wireless carrier in the world would carry Apple devices if they could, thus giving power in that relationship to Apple. If there is a disagreement, Apple can always move to another carrier. If they opened it to everyone, they would lose their control over their partners. The last thing Apple wants to do is lose control over the relationship and its products.

Additionally, it is only recently that Apple became a mainstream brand – for decades, it was a product for professionals and the elite. They have never gone after huge market share, but rather for superior products and groundbreaking design. People pay more for Apple products in general because Apple (through Steve Jobs) gives them exactly what they need and not every possible feature available (as Microsoft does), creating a more clean and flawless experience.

Rather than wonder why Apple is losing the battle against Google, we should look deeper at what Apple is really doing and notice they are competing on a far different strategy than Google (and Microsoft). It is no accident that they have seen more growth over the past years and have a higher market value than both companies. Apple is looking out the windows laughing at the critics, because they know by the time everyone figures out their strategy, it will be too late to stop them.

Google VoIP goes live!

I came across this article about Google recently launching its VOIP services. What I found rather interesting was that Google, with a flick of a switch, had provided "hundreds of millions" of its Gmail users the ability to use Google voice through VOIP!

Apart from making VoIP synonomous with Googling in today's tech vocabulary, a few parts of the solution are still missing. For one, the business VoIP that we know has still not been released. Google has said that the business VoIP offering wasn't ready yet but that they'd be interested in offering such a service in the future. Also with its Android operating system nearing ubiquity in the mobile sector--each plugged right in to a Gmail account--it's quite possible that with another flip of a software switch, Google would dominate the mobile VoIP world overnight as well.

The implications of Google providing VOIP products to desktop users and possibily in the near future through its Android smartphones eliminates the need for other desktop and mobile VOIP products. Also companies like Skype will be under threat by Google entering its domain. Finally this could mean another nail in the coffin for US telecom operators' declining voice ARPU (Avg Revenue Per User).

Apple approves Google Voice App for iPhone App store

More than a year after rejecting the official and third-party applications for Google Voice, Apple has just approved GV Mobile for the iPhone. People can now visit the iTunes store and download the app for $2.99.

There is a lot of buzz online about what this new app means. Some are complaining that they don't understand what this app does, others are saying it's going to forever change the way they make calls, "with nsanely cheap international calling, a permanent phone number for life no porting necessary, free texting, synchronized phone records and sms's available online..."

Personally, I'd be curious to see how this changes (if at all) the rivalry between Apple and Google -- and how this impacts AT&T. Text and minutes overage charges are a significant source of revenue for cell phone service providers. I imagine this new app could have an impact on AT&T's revenues.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/Apple-Approves-Google-Voice-App-for-iPhone-App-Store-699181/

"We Celebrate Our Failures", no more, Mr. Schmidt

"We celebrate our failures", Google's CEO Schmidt said in the Techonomy conference, 2010 in response to closure of the Google Wave.

The times have gone when everything Google touched turned into gold.

Google has historically not been a company that has been afraid to take risks since the failures have been too far and few in between. However, in the last few years, a lot of products have not taken off as expected and have really impacted Google’s image among the consumers.

Maybe, now the time has come to reflect back on some of its failures.

Some of the recent big failures have been that of Google Videos, Google Audio Ads, Google Answers, Google Wave and its latest debacle, Buzz.

A lot of people agree that Google came late to the social networking party when facebook and twitter had essentially captured most of the market. However, I don’t think that this was the sole reason for the Buzz failure. The thing which drove people mad at buzz was that it was literally forced on them since Google bundled it with Gmail. It also had a lot of privacy issues like the status updates getting published in public, a user not being notified if someone started following him/her. People were shocked when Buzz appeared on their Gmail without notification. The consumer instantly rejected buzz and Google had to face a lot of flak for this.

While it all ties very well to Google's mission, the recent failures have given Schmidt something to think about.

With Bing constantly gaining market share, facebook and twitter being completely dominant in the social networking, increasing scrutiny from anti-trust and the ever increasing Wall Street expectations, time has come for Google to "reflect" back on its failures rather than "celebrate" them.

Food for thought: We discussed in class about Google trying to balance "exploration" with "exploitation". I think it is moving more and more towards the "exploration" end of the quadrant

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20012724-56.html

What is 'SmartPipes' and why is it so important to telecom operators today?

'SmartPipes', today is a very hot area for wireless service providers/telecom operators (such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-mobile) because of the potential for revenue generation. Just to give you a background, currently all telecom operators in the US provide WCDMA technology, with data connection speeds of 5-6 mbps, to all handsets. The next generation of wireless communication will be provided through LTE (Long Term Evolution)/4G technology. What this means is that we will be able to get mobile broadband speed upto 100 Mbps on our mobile handsets. We would be able to stream movies, do video chat with friends, do online gaming and download apps to enhance our entertainment experience all at once. Currently telecom operators provide mobile broadband speed of only 5-6 Mbps, which shows that LTE/4G will completely change the end user experience.

The basic services provided by operators, prior to the launch of the Apple iPhone in 2007, were mainly voice and text. But with the iPhone, people were able to download apps which provided new features. People could watch videos, listen to music, surf the web and send emails. This made the iPhone a smart device and more commonly called a ‘smartphone’. Today many handset manufacturers (like Google, Nokia, Samsung, LG, HP-Palm) manufacture smartphones.

So how does this all tie into SmartPipes. Well, with handset manufacturers making smartphones and creating their own app stores telecom operators were not getting any part of the revenue pie. In essence, they were providing the connectivity to these smartphones, which in turn allowed users to download apps and all the money went to the content providers such as Apple and Google and some amount to the developers of the apps. So the telecom operators provided what was called the ‘dumb pipe’ experience since their network only provided good connectivity and high bit transfer rate. The challenge that many telecom operators are trying to address around the world today is how to move from being a ‘dumb pipe’ (and not giving away all their revenues to companies like Apple and Google) to becoming a ‘smart pipe’ and capturing a major slice of the services revenue.

'Smart Pipes', entails telecom operators to provide more value for every bit of data sent over their network. How can this be done, is much debated by analyst and experts in the market. Some of the common themes where we see them making money are by charging for data usage (since we have seen exponential growth in data usage with the advent of smartphones); creating their own app store; collaborating with other telecom operators to create a consortium of some sort (like GSMAOneAPI) where apps can be downloaded to any smartphone. All in all, they want to break the monopoly that Google and Apple have created in the App market. Also operators have an advantage in the services they can provide to users since they provide the connection based on the subscription plan the user chooses. Also they can provide great user experience through ‘quality of service’ and efficient network traffic handling.

Smartpipes is the future for telecom operators, since we already see that the US market has reached saturation on the number of subscribers. We also see that subscribers are spending less time on voice and more on data services. All this points to the fact, that operators need to focus their energies on getting a bigger slice of the services market by capitalizing on data usage.

Is Google a Monopolist? Two Views

Image via CrunchBaseThose interested in more legal-oriented discussions on whether Google is a monopolist or not may find this debate interesting. There are two points of view--one from Google and another from a lawyer representing companies suing Google. Here's the link.

Somebody Didn't Read the Company Motto

A pair of recent violations by Google employees highlight the risks to individual privacy associated with the growing amount of personal information being collected by companies like Google and Facebook. Engineer David Barksdale was fired after having accessed the accounts of four minors. He viewed their Google Voice call logs, chat transcripts and contact lists in order to gain personal information. According to accounts in Wired and Tech Crunch, his motivation was petty rather than criminal, but it's still troubling. Also troubling is that Google chose to treat this violation as an internal matter rather than as a criminal breach of cyber law.

While this is a case of an individual breaching protocol, Google acknowledged that a similar incident had happened before. They have promised to improve their internal security measures and will introduce more stringent restrictions on employee access to user data. However, these policy changes don't address the core problem of huge repositories of personal information that have the potential to be exploited in a variety of ways by employees or hackers.