One of the best things about Twitter is its wildly creative ecosystem of applications built by people outside the company. Those apps have been constrained, though, by technical limits imposed on retrieving data from Twitter. Those limits are just about to be raised much higher and developers tell us that a whole new world of applications and features may become possible. Twitter’s Director of Platform Ryan Sarver followed up on earlier public announcements this weekend with an email to developers explaining plans to raise the limit on the number of times an application can request information from Twitter for a single user to 10 times what it is today (from 150 req/hr to 1500/hr) and to offer everyone the same kind of paid access to the full “fire hose” of user updates that Google and Bing enjoy. People who build cool Twitter apps say this is very big news. Sponsor Twitter developers say the new changes could lead to: Richer functionality for apps and services, beyond new user interfaces. More development around new features like Retweets and Lists. More real-time user experiences. Improved viability for the Twitter API. The Twitter API gets hit every time an application wants to look up a user’s friends, their updates, their bio information and more. If you’re building an application that analyzes, cross-references and offers useful and fun insights and features based on those types of information, then current API limits are a constraint on how much analysis you can perform, bake-down and present to your users. Raising the limits on developer access to user information will enable more processing to be done behind the scenes and more magic to be presented to end-users of Twitter apps. We spoke to some of our favorite developers about both the API limit increase and the fire hose access. Here’s what they had to say. Iain Dodsworth, Tweetdeck “Not wishing to overstate the case but these changes will allow for the next generation of Twitter app. So far the ecosystem has mainly concentrated on providing numerous new UIs onto Twitter (with pretty good success I might add). Potentially the 10x API will signal a shift towards richer functionality & service development: Twitter 2.0. [emphasis added] “We’re already working on functionality which mines and analyses Twitter data within the application layer which wouldn’t be possible without a 10x API limit. I’m interested to see how the API scales with these new API limits.” Loic Le Meur, Seesmic “The increased API limits allow apps to come up with new interaction models for Twitter, and also to catch up on all the new features Twitter added (new RTs, lists), which couldn’t be supported properly with 150 requests per hour. ” Justyn Howard, SproutSocial “On the 10x increase – Not too many people bump into the authorized limit today unless they run multiple apps, but that was by design. All of us developers built in controls to limit the calls, which has left power users constantly slamming the refresh button. So this does a couple of things: 1. It allows developers to loosen the logic throttling API calls which will create a closer to real-time experience for the end-users. 2. Also opens some new opportunities on cool things we can do which require the user API vs. Search (some things you can’t get from the open API’s, you need to use the user’s account to do them). 3. Will open the doors for more secondary apps, where users previously couldn’t have more than one or two [different Twitter apps] open without hitting rate limits, you’ll see more people using niche apps in the background if they provide some capability beyond what Seesmic, Tweetie and Tweetdeck offer.” On Access to the Firehose for Everyone Kevin Marshall, co-founder of innovative social graph parsing application provider Wow.ly , builds apps that have a clear need for increased rate limits. “This is great,” he told us, “because the 150 per hour limit in conjunction with various API features (for example, the social graph API) makes it very difficult to pull off some more ‘advanced’ features I would like to build.” On offering the Firehose to everyone, Marshall had an unusual and interesting response that demonstrates the maturity that this ecosystem is developing. It’s not a simple matter of everyone chasing thoughtlessly after the real-time stream. “The more I do with and around social data, the less interested I seem to become in ‘realtime’ and the more interested I become in ‘over time.’ When I first started hacking on Twitter (and Facebook) apps, I was in love with the idea of parsing and analyzing data in real-time and I was very link/content focused. But the more I build and use these tools, the more I see the value in the history and the trails of the data set – especially when you consider that we are all living in a more asynchronous world then ever before thanks to things like blogs, Tivo, Hulu, iTunes, and other media-on-demand stuff. I don’t think it’s really so much about ‘what are you doing right now’ as it is ‘what have you done that’s interesting to me right now?’…and I think you get that by aggregating and analyzing.” None the less, many developers will welcome the opening of previously selective fire hose access. Mailana founder Pete Warden says even his seed-funded company is looking forward to ponying up some cash. “This may sound counter-intuitive as a starving entrepreneur,” he told us, “but the best guarantee the API will stay open and available is if Twitter makes money from it.” “It gives developers the chance to move from being charity-cases to paying customers, and so gives Twitter a lot more reasons to listen to what we want. Anyone who wants to deal with the flood of data from the firehose already has to invest in some beefy hardware, (my server and bandwidth bills are thousands of dollars a month) so reasonable fees from Twitter shouldn’t raise the barrier to entry by much.” These changes are expected to go live soon and we look forward to seeing what they enable new and old Twitter apps to do. You can find and follow the RWW team on Twitter here . Discuss

Excerpt from:
Twitter 2.0: API Rate Change Could Lead to a World of New Apps & Features

The latest quarterly survey by comScore reports that the iPhone just passed Windows Mobile phones in US market share, though it remains at just over half the level of the Blackberry. The iPhone has been outselling Windows Mobile for some time, so it was only a matter of time until there were more iPhones in peoples’ hands. Android is still at the back of the pack but is showing signs of significant momentum. Sponsor Tracing links back from blog to blog the comScore phone survey of users about what types of phones they have in their hands appears first on FierceDeveloper ; comScore’s press contact was unavailable for comment but mobile developers say the numbers are unsurprising. Android growth has been steady but that platform remains below Windows Mobile, Palm’s WebOS and Symbian. Another report by comScore this morning though found that consumer interest in Android is growing fast and now rivals consumer interest in the iPhone. “Of those American consumers in the market for a smartphone,” comScore writes, “17 percent are considering the purchase of an android-supported device in next three months, compared to 20 percent indicating they plan to purchase an iPhone. Android’s prospects may fare even better in the global marketplace. “Android will continue to pick up market share, especially in the global smartphone market, because of Symbian’s lack of innovation in the last 3-4 years,” mobile blogger Jason Harris told us today. “Symbian is said to have 37% worldwide market share, and this will further erode as more folks give Android a look. Especially with the Nexus One coming out – a phone that is sold directly from Google and not from your carrier – that’s very cohesive with the European model. Right now Android has only been available from carriers, leading to OS fragmentation. Now with the Nexus One, the phone will come from Google itself, meaning your OS updates will be direct from the source, not via the carrier, who has customized the Android OS to their liking. That might work in the US, where we are carrier-centric, but not in other markets, especially emerging markets.” Discuss

Excerpt from:
More People Now Use iPhones Than Windows Mobile

BlueKai is an online marketing firm that provides data to marketers, ad networks and publishers. The main purpose of this data, held in a repository called the BlueKai Data Exchange, is to target ads to consumers. BlueKai claims to have now aggregated “intent data” from over 160 million unique users on e-commerce, online travel agency and auto comparison sites. What is “intent data”? Broadly speaking, it’s data that purports to show the intent of Web users when they browse a website. For example, a recent report from BlueKai collected and analyzed online shopping data over Black Friday week. In this post we look at that report’s findings and then ask some questions about the validity of the data. Sponsor Black Friday Online Shopping: Netbooks & Nintendo Popular BlueKai defined the resulting “shopping intent” data as “search and shopping related activities by consumers on retail and price comparison sites.” Specifically these “intents” included price search by auto make and model, travel destination search by airport or city, and activity on price comparison sites. The report analyzed “more than 10 million online shopping intent actions” for PCs and video game consoles through the week ending November 28, 2009. Here’s a chart showing that netbooks , rather than the recently released Windows 7 , had the biggest increase in shopping intent actions in the PC category over the Black Friday holiday period. BlueKai explained: “Online intent actions by those shopping for Netbooks surged 81% during the week of Black Friday versus the prior week, with Netbooks reaching 7.1% share of total PC online intent actions for the week ending November 28. Just a month prior, Netbooks comprised only 2.7% of PC-related online intent actions on the BlueKai Exchange.” Here’s another chart, this time showing that Nintendo game devices, and in particular the Wii, held the most interest amongst online shoppers during Black Friday week. How it Works A New York Times article earlier this year profiled both BlueKai and a similar data house called eXelate . The Times explained how they work: “They both track who is interested in what through a cookie, an invisible bit of code on a Web page. When someone does a search, for example, on Kayak.com for first-class flights to Paris in September, that information can be captured by a cookie, and Kayak.com can sell that cookie using eXelate or BlueKai.” As well as intent data, BlueKai recently announced a new service that gives advertisers access to shopper profiles. BlueKai CEO Omar Tawakol claimed that this gives advertisers insight into “actual shopping patterns,” as opposed to merely surveying a user base. The problem is, BlueKai is inferring things about a consumer that may not be true . Claire Herminjard of the now defunct Lookery , which tried (and failed) to make a business of capturing explicit user data via a piece of javascript in partner sites, put it well : “[we] make no assumptions about users. If we don’t have data on a consumer, we don’t pretend that we do (or assume what we think it may be).” Although Herminjard was primarily trying to position Lookery as a better data source, her other point was that BlueKai is essentially a “black box” and its data can’t be substantiated when it comes to users – or their intents. Questions Over Data Reliability, But There’s a Big Market For It What BlueKai is doing is similar to the methods used by the raft of recommendation engines we’ve profiled this year . We found in that series that each recommendation engine had its own methods and algorithms; and that it was difficult to judge the accuracy of the data and which company’s method worked best. Likewise I’m somewhat skeptical of BlueKai’s data claims, especially given how unreliable web data usually is (Alexa anyone?). Nevertheless, BlueKai is attempting to mine a large store of data that up till now has been very difficult to gather and analyze on a large scale online: user patterns on commerce sites. Whether or not the data is reliable is an open question for now, but there is a large market for it – and that will continue as long as online advertising is the main business model on the Web. Discuss

Continue reading here:
BlueKai: Intent Data or Black Box?

Facebook used to be dominated by White and Asian users, but tonight the company announced results of a demographic study of its users concluding that the percentages of Black and Hispanic users of the site are now approaching their percentages of the population in the general US public. Hear that? Facebook scientists have looked at the data and everything is ok now. For months, we’ve been calling on Facebook to open up user data in an appropriate way for the public at large to study. Sponsor It’s an invaluable bird’s eye view of the interactions between 350 million people around the world. There are probably a lot of social patterns of interaction between people that could be discovered in that data – some not pretty at all. For now, though, Facebook has analyzed the data in-house and given itself a cheery report card. More analysis appears to be forthcoming, so we’ll see what we’re told about what really goes on on Facebook – but that data ought to be made available for outside analysis. In this case the data wasn’t anonymized, it was analyzed by two in-house staff members and two grad students from Cornell and Princeton. The group compared users’ last names on Facebook to US Census data about the percentage of people with those last names who reported particular racial backgrounds. Once a larger number of Facebook users have public profiles, something that’s probably happening very rapidly thanks to the radical new privacy settings the company began recommending to users last week , then analyzing things like names, friend lists and associations won’t constitute a violation of user privacy anymore. That might not sound like something many users are comfortable with, but one way or another there is a lot of potential for social good (not just advertising) made possible by aggregate user data. Perhaps co-incidentally, perhaps not – the new privacy regime will remove the primary objections to bulk analysis of user data. Presumably something will need to be done to make the data available in bulk and in an appropriate format for outside analysis, though. The example we’ve offered most commonly in calling for this data to be released is the history of what’s called Real Estate Redlining. When in the 1960′s both US Census information and real estate mortgage loan information were made available for bulk analysis, it was proven that banks around the US were discriminating against home loan applicants in traditionally African American neighborhoods. That was a big deal and we suspect that there are patterns of comparable importance, both positive and negative, hiding in Facebook’s huge store of data. For contrast and illustration, consider the conclusions drawn by popular dating site OK Cupid in an analysis of dating inquiry response rates between its users of different races . In heterosexual pairs, male inquirers on OK Cupid were far more likely to get a response when they were white. Black, Hispanic and Asian men saw terrible response rates from women on the site. White men were least likely to respond to inquiries from Black women and they were by far the most likely to say that they preferred to date people of their same race. Both white men and women were quite unusual in the likelihood of their saying they preferred to date people of their own race. Take that, people who commented on the Facebook study tonight saying that people don’t see race any more! It certainly appears that we do. It will be interesting to see if Facebook is willing to publish data that shines a less positive light on its own user base. Most likely, outside parties would be more apt to expose data like that. The world could use some more self-awareness, Facebook, but it’s important that such self-awareness not be hand-delivered by scientists on your own staff, with your financial interests as their bottom line. Discuss

See the rest here:
Facebook Becomes More Racially Diverse, Ought To Release Data for Outside Analysis

In a chat today lasting over an hour, we got to talk to a person claiming to be the infamous hacker behind RockYou ‘s latest data security woes. While he claimed to have no animosity toward users, he had one clear message for websites: Take better care of your customers’ data. RockYou isn’t the only hacked site storing plain text login information, either. Sponsor What Happened To bring us all up to date, here’s the gist of the story so far: The hacker, who we’ll call Tom (not his real name) for brevity’s sake, tells us that he used an SQL injection to gain direct access to RockYou’s database, where he found login information for more than 32 million user accounts. The data was all in plain text and contained third-party site logins, as well. Tom sat on this information for a while. Although he’s posted about similar hacks in the past, he also claims to have exposed the same vulnerabilities and gained access to the same kind of data for many major U.S. sites. Tom wouldn’t reveal which sites he’d hacked, but he did say that he has no intention of using or publishing the data he’s unearthed. But yesterday, incensed by this warning from an Internet security company and RockYou’s claims that only some accounts had been compromised by the security breach, Tom posted about the hack on his blog . We (along with several of our peers) were tipped off to the situation via Twitter , and TechCrunch has since written two posts about the data breach. Why This Is a Bad Thing One of the more interesting facets of the story is RockYou’s failure to appropriately protect user’s login credentials. The hacker showed us an image containing the last few lines of a 32,603,388-line, seven-column dataset weighing in at 276 MB. All the data we saw was in plain text; any grade schooler could have used this information to log in to users’ accounts. “If you don’t store passwords for accounts, if somebody hacks you, what can he do? Deface your site. The end,” said Tom. “That’s nothing against 32 million emails with passwords. Count how many of them have PayPal. If I check every one, and only 10 percent of them have it, and I take only $10, it’s a pretty nice amount, don’t you think?” The hacker makes an excellent point with this object lesson, and he clearly holds RockYou and its ilk squarely at fault. Tom, who says he’s employed in a good security-related job, believes there should be laws requiring companies to encrypt user data. He said, “They are now hunting for me, but why? I didn’t do anything wrong. They should now be in jail because they put all of these people at risk. This was just for illustration.” What We Can All Do Tom says that one out of every three sites he’s gained access to store user data in plain text databases. “Server owners can use third-party sites for authentications, like Facebook, Google, OpenID or OAuth.” he said. “Why the [redacted] would they want user passwords? I don’t understand that.” For websites, the hacker recommends using hashes with salt or PCI DSS to protect user data. He said that message-digest algorithm-5 (MD5) was an inadequate solution. “If you’re storing it in MD5, it’s nothing… It’s no problem to use a GPU cracker, or better, a botnet of PS3s. I’ve got three at home.” As far as users are concerned, Tom said, “Companies are putting people at risk by storing their data that way. [Users] should use their brains and generate a strong password for each site. He noted that Roboform , PassPack and KeePass are all good tools for storing and maintaining passwords. Discuss

See the article here:
RockYou Hacker: 30% of Sites Store Plain Text Passwords

I first became aware of Demand Media by reading this feature by Daniel Roth in the November 2009 issue of Wired [ Ed: ReadWriteWeb wrote a feature about it in August ] . In fact, Roth alerted me by email that his piece was about to come online, because he thought I would find it interesting. He was dead on. I found it fascinating, and also scary. Since then the discussion of these “content farms” (what ReadWriteWeb editor Richard MacManus called them recently) has picked up a lot intensity online. For a good round-up, see Jason Fry’s recent post The Furor Over Content Farms . In the following interview with Demand Media founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt, I explore this new online phenomenon. Sponsor Jay Rosen teaches journalism at NYU and blogs at PressThink , which won the Reporters Without Borders 2005 Freedom Blog award. He is also the director of NewAssignment.Net and blogs at the Huffington Post. I’ve been discussing Demand Media a bit on Twitter, always referring to it as… (the demonic) Demand Media. This got the attention of someone from the company because I heard from Richard Rosenblatt, the founder and CEO, who said that I didn’t understand the firm’s mission. I asked him if he would do an interview with me to clarify what that mission was. He graciously agreed. Today I caught up with him by IM and we had the following exchange. Rosen : In the November 2009 Wired article by Daniel Roth, this was the part I thought most important: “Most media companies are trying hard to… boost the value of their online content until it matches the amount of money it costs to produce. But Rosenblatt thinks they have it exactly backward. Instead of trying to raise the market value of online content to match the cost of producing it — perhaps an impossible proposition — the secret is to cut costs until they match the market value.” Now, when you wrote to me, you said I didn’t get the mission of Demand Media. As I understand it, the mission is to make a ton of money on the Web by using data mining to understand demand and then cutting costs in this way Roth described. Do I have it wrong? Rosenblatt : It’s not all about cost cutting but about building a sustainable media model that allows us to achieve our mission to build an engine for what the world wants to know and share. We do this by connecting consumers with content that meets their specific interests and [offers] connections to people that share their passion. To do this well, and at scale, has required significant innovation and investment. Rosen : Here’s what I think Demand Media has right. It’s important to know what people are interested in. It’s good to have tools that tell us what they wish to know. Using that knowledge to guide production is innovation, too, which we need– precisely because production is so easy and cheap and the tools are so good. But here’s what I think bothers a lot of people, and leads to a description of your firm as a “content farm” or “factory.” I read about the 11 people – and 15 different roles – involved in the production of articles and video in Demand Studios. I get your idea that “quality is based on relevance.” But if you’re trying to match costs to the available revenue for a given piece of content, what happens when editorial quality requires costs greater that what’s available in search revenue? And who’s watching out for that point? Rosenblatt : I like the way you describe and characterize our business; maybe we have a lot more in common that you think. We are building content that is evergreen and solving a different type of problem. We are focused on creating content that solves problems, answers questions, saves money, saves time, makes you laugh – content that improves people’s lives in big and small ways. It’s relevant and impactful to millions and millions of people every day. It must generally fit within the economic framework the Internet provides today. As those economics change so will we. Rosen : Okay I got that but I am not sure it answers this part of my question: …if you’re trying to match costs to the available revenue for a given piece of content, what happens when editorial quality requires costs greater that what’s available in search revenue? And who’s watching out for that point? Rosenblatt : We only make content that we think can be done responsibly and within our cost structure. Rosen : As you know, there’s a conversation going on out there about Demand Media, and I want to show you a bit of it. The premise, as Jeff Jarvis puts it, is that companies like yours (and Associated Content, to name another) “produce crap that’s just good enough to fool algorithms,” especially Google’s. This is said to be a problem for Google. So Jarvis writes, “I think we may see search fall as the sole or even key means of discovery and filtering of quality content. I see three rings of discovery today: search (Google); algorithms (see: Google News, Daylife); and humans (see: Twitter). Note again that Bit.ly alone causes as many clicks a month — one billion — as Google News. Human power rises again. That’s what Fred Wilson says today when he argues that social beats search, because “it’s a lot harder to spam yourself into a social graph.” What do to you think of Wilson’s idea, “social beats search” because it cannot be gamed as easily? If he’s right, isn’t that a threat to Demand Media’s profits? Rosenblatt : First of all, we’re not filling up search engines. We’re creating content that lives on some of the most engaging websites in the world. These sites have really amazing tools that truly help people – whether it’s managing your diabetes, motivating yourself to stop smoking, helping you drop your golf handicap, or determining what hike to take the kids on this weekend. And I wouldn’t say we are even “search-led” any more. We are led by consumer demand. We are maniacally focused on giving users exactly what they want, where they want it. We have algorithms that tell us what search visitors want. And algorithms that tell us what YouTube visitors prefer. And we’re working on new algorithms that tell us what social network users desire. And we’re pretty sure the needs of mobile users will be different than all of the above – so we’ll tune our approach for them too. Search is just where we started, because that’s where most consumers started their information seeking experiences. But the world has changed a lot since we started Demand Media four years ago – and we’re changing with it. Rosen : So you’re getting social too and moving away from just search? Rosenblatt : Absolutely and have been planning this for years; we consider this a core part of our business and social has been at the center of our business since we started Rosen : Does the description of your company as a “content farm,” content mill, factory (or even digital sweatshop) seem to you inaccurate or point missing in some way? I mean I know these are not nice terms or polite descriptions but are they wrong headed? Rosenblatt : Completely missing the point. We have significant editorial processes. Let me explain. How do we do this? We hire qualified professional writers, film-makers and copyeditors. Set clear editorial objectives and style guidelines for every piece. Require external sources with every submission. Copy edit what’s been turned in. Fact-check it. Check it for plagiarism. Rate each piece so that writers get feedback. Provide education to improve the team members. Perform quality audits and take down content that doesn’t meet current standards (thousands per month). Weed out content creators who aren’t performing well or improving fast enough (we let go more than 100 creators per month). What’s more like a sweatshop: someone’s living room working their own hours or a typical newsroom? Rosen : When you’re trying to build trust in an editorial brand, you pay those costs when they exceed available revenues, which I talked about. But it seems to me that Demand isn’t trying to build trust in that way, it’s trying to create content that meets demand, stays relevant and grabs the available search revenue. Why doesn’t Demand Media create the bulk of its content under the Demand brand, like Reuters, say? Rosenblatt : We believe that the Internet continues to fragment and passionate audiences want their own community and brand. The brands we are focused on: our Web sites such as eHOW, Livestrong and our other properties. This is where we focus our branding energy. Rosen : As you know, journalism is in a good deal of peril today because of a collapsing economic model. I’ve read that Demand does not want to go anywhere near news, which is interesting, but do you feel you have discovered anything that would be useful to journalists as they try to survive Rosenblatt : We respect journalists very much. We think they need to use technology to help them figure out what audiences want and how to get value from their content more effectively. And there are big opportunities for them to increase quality by removing inefficiencies in the process of content creation. We would love to partner with as many publishers and media outlets as we can Rosen : You seem to know how to make money on the Web, why not get into news? Rosenblatt : Because we haven’t figure out how to do it responsibly and profitably also, its completely saturated and highly competitive. Consumers already have more sources than they need. Rosen : Someone who follows my work and knew I was interviewing you told me to ask you this: Do you love the Web? The implied question there is: if you love the Web, then why are you doing this, running these content farms… ? Rosenblatt : OMG. My entire career and life has been about the Web. Trying to innovate and create value where open spaces exist. We do not have a content mill as we discussed but an efficient method to get people the information they need when they want it. That is improving the Internet and I am proud of it Rosen : Open spaces? What does that phrase mean? Rosenblatt : Where there is a lot of room for opportunity for not only our company but for other entrepreneurs. Rosen : I know you have a meeting to run to… thanks very much… anything you wish to add? Rosenblatt : I hope to see you in NY in the future to continue our dialogue. All my best and happy holidays. Check out ReadWriteWeb’s entire coverage of Demand Media and content farms: Content Farms: Why Media, Blogs & Google Should Be Worried How Google Can Combat Content Farms Demand Media Is a Page View Generating Machine – And it’s Working Answers.com: 31 Million Copied and Pasted Web Pages Can’t Go Wrong The Age of Mega Content Sites – Answers.com and Demand Media How Demand Media Produces 4,000 Pieces of Content a Day Ad-Driven Content – Is it Crossing The Line? Discuss

Visit link:
Jay Rosen Interviews Demand Media: Are Content Farms "Demonic"?

Morgan Stanley has released a couple of bulky documents about the mobile internet: ‘The Mobile Internet Report,’ a 424 page report which explores 8 major themes; and ‘The Mobile Internet Report Key Themes,’ a 659-slide presentation that drills down on thoughts covered in the report. We’ve embedded both documents below. Perhaps the most remarkable statement in the report is that the Mobile Internet market will be “at least 2x size of Desktop Internet,” which Morgan Stanley bases on math comparing Internet Users with Mobile Subscribers. Sponsor The report starts out by saying that Apple’s iPhone / iTouch / iTunes ecosystem “may prove to be the fastest ramping and most disruptive technology product / service launch the world has ever seen.” It goes on to state that “a handful of incumbents (like Apple, Google, Amazon.com and Skype) appear especially well positioned for mobile changes.” Growth in the Mobile Internet is being driven by 3G adoption and the increasing popularity of smartphones, of which the iPhone is the leader. Morgan Stanley predicts that smartphones “will out-ship the global notebook + netbook market in 2010E and out-ship the global PC market (notebook + netbook + desktop) by 2012E.” The firm has always been bullish on mobile internet, as Mary Meeker’s Web 2.0 conference presentations over the years show. See also our analysis of Meeker’s 2009 Web 2.0 presentation . The reports are far too big to summarize here, so we recommend you read them below – or download from Morgan Stanley’s website. Via Scribd Via Scribd Discuss

Read more here:
Morgan Stanley: Mobile Internet Market Will Be Twice The Size of Desktop Internet