Technology - Google News

Facebook rolls out job posts to become the blue-collar LinkedIn
Should You Get a Cheaper Phone? Be Sure to Look Into the Camera
Google gets 2.4M requests from Europeans to be 'forgotten'

Facebook rolls out job posts to become the blue-collar LinkedIn

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 06:34 AM PST

LinkedIn wasn't built for low-skilled job seekers, so Facebook is barging in. Today Facebook is rolling out job posts to 40 more countries to make itself more meaningful to people's lives while laying the foundation for a lucrative business.

Businesses will be able to post job openings to a Jobs tab on their Page, Jobs dashboard, Facebook Marketplace, and the News Feed that they can promote with ads. Meanwhile, job seekers can discover openings, auto-fill applications with their Facebook profile information, edit and submit their application, and communicate via Messenger to schedule interviews.

TechCrunch first spotted Facebook testing the Jobs tab in late 2016 before it rolled out in the U.S. and Canada last year. Facebook partnered with ZipRecruiter to bring more job openings to its platform. And now the features are rolling out in Brazil, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain on iOS, Android, and the web.

"One in four people in the US have searched for or found a job using Facebook" writes Facebook's VP of Local Alex Himel. "But 40% of US small businesses report that filling jobs was more difficult than they expected. We think Facebook can play a part in closing this gap."

Now users in the new countries will be able to use the Jobs dashboard found in the Facebook web sidebar or mobile app's More section to discover jobs using filters like proximity, industry, and whether they want a full-time or part-time gig.

[embedded content]

The Job posts rollout could help Facebook steal some of the $1.1 billion in revenue LinkedIn earned for Microsoft in Q4 2017. But the bigger opportunity is developing a similar business where companies pay to promote their job openings and land hires, but for lower-skilled local companies in industries like retail and food service.

In this space, job applicants often don't have glowing resumes and education histories that look good on LinkedIn. They might not even be on the site, and if they are, they probably don't spend much time there. But they may already have their limited professional experience listed and they spend a ton of time casually browsing the site. This lets Facebook connect them with job even if they weren't actively seeking a position, and quickly apply to lots of different positions by piggybacking off their profile info.

"Troy, the owner of Striper Sniper Tackle in North Carolina had trouble finding people with the specific skills he needed until he posted the job on his Facebook Page. He received 27 applications immediately, and hired 10 people" Facebook writes. Those jobs probably wouldn't appeal to LinkedIn users, and some of those who applied probably didn't think they were job hunting when they opened Facebook.

"Since 2011, Facebook has invested more than $1 billion to help local businesses grow and help people find jobs" Himel writes., referencing the Community Boost program that trains businesses and job seekers to better use the Internet…including Facebook. "In 2018 we plan to invest the same amount in more teams, technology, and new programs. Because when businesses succeed, communities thrive."

The challenge for Facebook may be convincing users that they can still be themselves on the social network. Facebook stresses that potential employers can only see what's public on an applicant's profile. But some users still might be paranoid that their party pics or niche hobbies could scare away hirers.

The move again proves how powerful being a default daily destination is. Over the past few years, Facebook built a giant business by becoming an alternative to YouTube where people serendipitously discover videos instead of purposefully coming to watch certain ones. That same strategy could make Facebook a massive gateway to local jobs. And it's coming at a time when Facebook is desperate to prove it can be meaningful to people and make their lives better, rather than just being a time sink.

Featured Image: Bryce Durbin/TechCrunch

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Should You Get a Cheaper Phone? Be Sure to Look Into the Camera

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 06:40 AM PST

The evolution of the smartphone can be summed up by two trends: Phones just keep getting bigger. They are also getting pricier.

The chief examples are phones from Apple and Samsung Electronics, the top handset makers. Samsung this week introduced the Galaxy S9, its new flagship smartphone, with starting prices of about $720 and, for a slightly larger screen, $840. Years ago, Galaxy phones started at about $650.

Apple's iPhone prices are also increasing. Last year, Apple released the iPhone 8 for $699, up from the $649 starting price of earlier iPhones. In addition, the company introduced the iPhone X, its first premium-tier handset, for $999.

Rising prices make the smartphone one of the most expensive household products. But unlike televisions, which plummet in price and attract bargain hunters, many consumers are willing to up their spending on phones.

"They become more and more essential to people's everyday life, so price sensitivity just continues to erode," said Jared Wiesel, a partner at Revenue Analytics, a pricing and sales consulting firm.

Yet plenty of people don't want to splurge on a fancy phone every few years. Huawei, the Chinese manufacturer, was the No.3 phone maker in the fourth quarter last year, IDC, a research firm, said. Sales of cheaper Honor smartphones and other low-end devices contributed to the company's growth.

If you are lining up to buy a new iPhone, you're probably not concerned with getting the lowest price for a smartphone.CreditSascha Steinbach/European Pressphoto Agency

And there's a silver lining for those who want to spend less: Cheaper smartphones have never been better. If you spend between $200 and $300, you can get a capable, fast smartphone for basic tasks like placing calls, using maps and sending texts. Of course, there are trade-offs, like lower-quality screens and less impressive cameras.

Is a budget phone right for you? Here's an overview on the pros and cons of going cheap, with some phone recommendations from Wirecutter, a New York Times company that tests products.

Pros and Cons

Let's start with the downsides of buying a cheaper phone.

■ You won't get the best camera. Budget phones lack the advanced camera sensors found on high-end smartphones. So if you go cheap, your phone camera probably won't be very fast, won't do a great job at taking photos in low light and will lack features like optical image stabilization, which helps photos remain clear even when your hands are shaky. "The camera is a big one," said Andrew Cunningham, a Wirecutter editor. "If you're taking photos, especially in low light, performance is going to fall off a cliff."

■ Obviously, you won't get cutting-edge features like the infrared face recognition system on the iPhone X or the fancy stylus on Samsung's big-screen Galaxy Note. You also won't get the fastest computing processor, so your phone won't be as capable of running games with heavy graphics.

■ You also won't get the brightest and most vibrant display. The fanciest smartphones have OLED screens, which have better color accuracy and contrast.

■ You won't get many software updates, which are important because they introduce new features and security enhancements. For phone makers, the priority is issuing big software updates to more powerful smartphones. At best, with a cheap Android phone you will probably get one major software update and a few security updates over 18 months.

With all that said, there are plenty of benefits to buying a good budget phone.

■ You will get a decent camera. Many cheaper phones have high-resolution sensors that can take clear, rich photos. "A cheap phone today is going to have a better camera than a cheap phone from three years ago," said Nathan Edwards, a senior editor for Wirecutter. "It's not like they're truly awful."

■ You'll get a good enough screen for reading websites, watching videos and looking at photos. Budget phones still use LCD, an older display technology that has greatly matured and still looks quite good.

■ Your phone will be fast enough for important tasks like placing calls, sending and receiving email, browsing the web and running lightweight apps. If you aren't an app-aholic or a gamer, maybe that is all you will need.

So here's the upshot. There is a strong argument for spending more on your smartphone: If it is your most important technology tool for work and play, you should probably invest in a superior device. But if you want a phone only for basic tasks and you're not in a hurry to adopt the latest and greatest technology, a cheaper phone may serve you well.

Picking the Right One

Now comes the tough part: picking a good budget phone and avoiding the duds. Wirecutter tested 20 of the best budget smartphones over the last few years to highlight a few. Expect to spend roughly $200.

Wirecutter's top budget phone is Motorola's Moto G5 Plus, which costs about $230. It has a high-quality camera, a good 5.2-inch screen, a fast fingerprint sensor and plenty of storage. The device also comes unlocked, meaning it works with all American carriers. (If you want to spend a bit more, you could buy the Moto X4, which is water-resistant and on sale for $300, down from $400.)

Wirecutter also highlighted Huawei's $200 Honor 7X, which has a better camera and bigger screen than the Moto G5 Plus. The downside is it runs an older version of the Android operating system, called Nougat.

Another option, if you prefer iPhones, is to buy an older iPhone model. Apple is still selling the iPhone 6s, introduced in 2015, which is reasonably fast with a nice camera and a good screen. It costs $449 through Apple, but you may find it much cheaper elsewhere. What's more, Apple typically supports its iPhones for about five years, so the 6s should continue to get software updates through 2020.

"A lot of things you'd have to pay 600 or 700 bucks for three or four years ago, you'll get for $200 or less now," Mr. Cunningham said. "If you just want the basics, a budget phone is going to do just fine for most people."

Brian X. Chen, our lead consumer technology reporter, writes about solving tech-related problems like sluggish Wi-Fi, poor smartphone battery life and the complexity of taking your smartphone abroad. What confuses you or makes you angry about your tech? Send your suggestions for future Tech Fix columns to brian.chen@nytimes.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Google gets 2.4M requests from Europeans to be 'forgotten'

Posted: 28 Feb 2018 06:52 AM PST

File photo: The Google logo is pictured atop an office building in Irvine, California, U.S. August 7, 2017. (REUTERS/Mike Blake)

Google has been flooded with 2.4 million requests from individuals and companies across Europe to be "forgotten" — that is, wiped clean from any Web search.

Most of the requests came from regular Joes wanting sensitive information — like their home address or personal photos or videos — removed from any Google search results, the company said in its annual transparency report released on Tuesday.

But among the others looking to take advantage of Europe's 2014 "right to be forgotten" law were 41,213 requests from celebrities and 33,937 requests from politicians, Google said in the report.

The law, enacted by the European Union in May 2014, requires Google and other search engines to de-list information when a valid request is received.

Americans do not have the ability to ask search engines to delete their names from search results.

In Europe, results that are eligible to be removed must be deemed "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive" by the search engine's staff and must be determined to not generate significant public interest.

The 2,437,271 requests received by Google cover the period from when the law went into effect through December 2017.

Google said that it has processed 2.08 million of the requests and that 43 percent, or roughly 900,000, have been deemed valid and have been de-listed.

The right-to-be-forgotten law has been so popular that a cottage industry appears to have popped up — companies helping others make the RTBF requests. Roughly 1,000 requesters — mainly law firms and reputation-management services — accounted for 360,000, or 15 percent, of all the RTBF bids, Google said.

While the law has been very popular, the demand is slowing. Google noted that 39.7 percent of de-listing requests were made in the first year of RTBF —with 24.9 percent coming in the second year and 22 percent in the third year.

Roughly one-third of the requests pertained to the removal of personal information from social-media and directory sites, while one-fifth of the requests were to remove a requester's legal history.

This story originally appeared in the New York Post.

Let's block ads! (Why?)