Honestly, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy (Mark Pincus). I say this after his extortion racket last year [1]. These kinds of antics (and I include the Skype clawback scandal [2] in this) threaten to undermine the tech industry as a whole.
But as far as Zynga goes, I see these "social games" as largely parasitic and should be regulated in much the same way that gambling is for much the same reasons. Zynga is struggling in a world where such gamers are going increasingly mobile.
Zynga is a proxy for Facebook because Facebook's near-term revenue sources are essentially:
1. Facebook credits; and
2. Display advertising.
(1) explains the correlation with Zynga. Apple is really drinking Facebook's milkshake here.
And I remain skeptical about the value of (2). I continue to believe that people's behaviour builds a better profile of what they want than what they tell you (ie look at what they do rather than listen to what they say). Facebook profiles reflect the human predilection for lying--to oneself and to others--about who they are and who they appear to be.
Don't get me wrong: Facebook could be a valuable display ad property. That just doesn't, by itself, make a $100B company.
You can count me as one of those that'll dance on the grave of Zynga however. The same goes for Groupon.
EDIT: regarding "parasitic", I refer you to Zynga's notion of "whales" [3] [4]. As much as Zynga might publicly state that these people might just be rich, I think they well know they're preying on those who are largely without self-control, intentionally cultivating addictive behaviour.
Some are OK with this. I am not. I see this as no different to encouraging gambling or drug addicts. YMMV.
I wonder if the United States will pass legislation against particular elements of social games, much like how Japan passed legislation designed solely to regulate social gaming companies like GREE and DeNA [1].
"I see these "social games" as largely parasitic and should be regulated in much the same way that gambling is for much the same reasons. "
Do you mean to say "addictive" or do you really mean parasitic?
Both "social games" and "gambling" are addictive. In both you can loose money.
But there are other things that are addictive that you can loose money in as well (stamp collecting, art collecting, buying and building model helicopters (great fun btw)).
Where do you draw the line with this?
In any case if you did mean parasitic could you explain further?
Psychologists have reasonably standardized measures of addiction. I wonder if there's a place for regulations that apply to "any product that turns out addictive for more than x% of buyers"; that would also solve the "designer drugs" problem (where a chemist can tweak a molecule to produce a slightly distinct one with the same effects faster than legislation can catch up)
But the truth is companies make many products to separate "addicts" from their money. Women's clothing, electronics, fancy cars, women's shoes. Or take QVC or HSN. You don't think that the nature of business in general (or food marketing I mean the list is endless) is engineered to separate people from their money? (Food obviously is really addicting no question about that).
All off these things share the same thing in common. They engineered and perfected to get you to spend money or something that gives you enjoyment. (It's not food though it's a certain type of food. Nobody is getting addicted to broccoli or boiled potatoes. Fried chicken or Lay's potato chips or things with MSG? Very possibly.
Obviously not every example I've given has the same degree of addiction.
I hope you realize that there is quite a difference between simply wanting or liking something a whole lot, and being addicted to something.
KFC does not seek to prey on the (hypothetical) few who are so addicted to fried chicken that they lose their families, sell their valuables, lose their careers, and sell their bodies to get another fix. They "prey" on people who like their product.
Real addiction (not your perverted sense of "addiction" being merely liking something intensely) is a hypothetical side effect of the businesses you give as examples. For the gambling industry and companies like Zynga, it is the business model.
It's a crowded space with a lot of big players, with possibly more money than Zynga. They just don't have plush offices in San Francisco and don't like to make it into the papers much.
Pushing into actual gambling is going to be a tough fight.
They don't need to out-compete the other players in internet gambling to make the "real money". They merely need to join them. I would be very surprised if they were actually unable to accomplish that, given that they already have the public's trust and attention. If they can't leverage that to at least some success, I'm not sure they could do anything.
But as far as Zynga goes, I see these "social games" as largely parasitic and should be regulated in much the same way that gambling is for much the same reasons. Zynga is struggling in a world where such gamers are going increasingly mobile.
Zynga is a proxy for Facebook because Facebook's near-term revenue sources are essentially:
1. Facebook credits; and
2. Display advertising.
(1) explains the correlation with Zynga. Apple is really drinking Facebook's milkshake here.
And I remain skeptical about the value of (2). I continue to believe that people's behaviour builds a better profile of what they want than what they tell you (ie look at what they do rather than listen to what they say). Facebook profiles reflect the human predilection for lying--to oneself and to others--about who they are and who they appear to be.
Don't get me wrong: Facebook could be a valuable display ad property. That just doesn't, by itself, make a $100B company.
You can count me as one of those that'll dance on the grave of Zynga however. The same goes for Groupon.
EDIT: regarding "parasitic", I refer you to Zynga's notion of "whales" [3] [4]. As much as Zynga might publicly state that these people might just be rich, I think they well know they're preying on those who are largely without self-control, intentionally cultivating addictive behaviour.
Some are OK with this. I am not. I see this as no different to encouraging gambling or drug addicts. YMMV.
[1]: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1000142405297020462190...
[2]: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/silicon-valley-wakes-...
[3]: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-06/tech/31028725...
[4]: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-05/tech/31123148...