Facebook Planning Office Version To Rival LinkedIn, Google

An anonymous reader points out a report that Facebook may be coming out with an office version to take on LinkedIn. Facebook at Work would “allow users to chat with colleagues, connect with professional contacts and collaborate over documents.” "Facebook is reportedly gearing up to take on LinkedIn, Google's Drive and services, Microsoft's Outlook and Yammer with a workplace-friendly version of the social networking site, but such a dream is unlikely to appeal to the enterprise. As reported last week by the Financial Times, "Facebook at Work" is a new product designed to allow professional users to message colleagues, connect with professional contacts and collaborate over documents. The website will have the same look as standard Facebook — including a news feed and groups — but according to people familiar with the matter, the idea is to keep work and personal accounts separate. It makes sense for the social networking giant. Launching a professional version can boost ad revenue, keep engagement up and give the company a valuable new market to tap. But in application, cracking the corporate world won't be easy."

Comments

Yammer

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Yammer?

This article is useless

[TheCastro1689]

All it has is opinions that aren't backed up by any facts. First, most companies I've worked for don't even block Facebook, and even if they do the website will probably be some thing like Facework.com or something to further distinguish itself from your personal account. Second, Linkden was hacked, so I don't know how "secure" it is. Third, Linkden is not a more professional looking site than Facebook, and the fact that people shove themselves into your circle or whatever steared me away from Linkden long ago. Hardly anyone I know under the age of 30 uses it unless they're foreign or looking for a new job. I doubt Facebook will have a problem with market penetration like the author of the linked article thinks they will.

Re:This article is useless

[MachineShedFred]

Just like the product.

The company I used to work for implemented Microsoft's Yammer, and it was a vast wasteland devoid of any content whatsoever. Just people wasting time with "shout outs."

This is Facebook being led down a path to nowhere because other companies decided to go there. Unfortunately for all of them, these are solutions to a question that nobody asked.

Re:This article is useless

[nucrash]

History seems to repeat itself with every new technology.

1. is new fangled and confusing, only used by a few.
2. hits mass acceptance.
3. is not perceived as useful at work because people will not actually get work done, they will just screw off.
4. starts to become useful and appealing as a way to get work done faster.
5. becomes the status quo for work environment and getting work done becomes impossible without the .

In the place of you can place:

a. Telephone
b. Personal Computer
c. Email
d. Internet
e. Instant Messenger
f. Social Networking
g. Cloud Services
h. Cellular Phones
i. Smart Phones

This is literally the same story over and over and over.

My company is one that blocks Facebook, but there are a select few who are allowed through because... "They can't get their job done without it."
I can tell you that at one time or another access to each of these resources was limited by my company and that slowly over the years, there has been a transition for each and every one of these.

Re:This article is useless

[JaredOfEuropa]

I've seen several companies with a successful Yammer network, meaning it added real business value. Rolling out things like wikis, microblogging tools or discussion forums in a company requires more than just installing the software and announcing the new service; you need active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture the community continuously. That means you also need to understand the role you want these things to play in your business. . Those who perceive them as mere tools to be rolled out will most likely fail.

Re:This article is useless

[Pi1grim]

a. Telephone
b. Personal Computer
c. Email
d. Internet

h. Cellular Phones
i. Smart Phones

All hit stage 5 of mass acceptance at work before hitting mass acceptance.

Re:This article is useless

[nine-times]

Hardly anyone I know under the age of 30 uses it unless they're foreign or looking for a new job. I doubt Facebook will have a problem with market penetration like the author of the linked article thinks they will.

So assuming what you're saying is right, it seems like Facebook will run into a completely different problem: they're fighting over a failing market. If nobody wants to use LinkedIn, then who's going to use Facebook's version of LinkedIn?

Re:This article is useless

[Z00L00K]

I don't do Facebook at all and I don't see any reason to either.

I do use Linkedin, but mostly as an address book.

Re:This article is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether used or not, if companies pay FB for their own branded space (ala Yammer), then it is a regular and reliable revenue stream for them. They have no reason not to support it, not with so much $ potential.

Re:This article is useless

[CohibaVancouver]

All hit stage 5 of mass acceptance at work before hitting mass acceptance.

I have to call you out on 'email' and 'internet,' at least outside of tech companies.

I started in the working world in 1988, so I watched the arrival of email and internet. Long after everyone had it at home, PCs at work didn't have email / net access. "Mabel in the back" might have had a US Robotics modem so she could dial-up "the email" but that was it. In many businesses PCs weren't networked, or if they were it was via NetBEUI or some other inappropriate protocol.

Re:This article is useless

[NeutronCowboy]

you need active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture the community continuously.

Spot on. Every single failure I've seen of an internal communications tool that wasn't Email or IM failed because of a lack of one of the three things you mentioned. They are tools, but they need to much more help to grow than something that everyone has to use, like a case system or a CRM.

Re:This article is useless

[TheCastro1689]

I agree with your point about what I was saying. It seems Facebook is trying to capture it because it's a failed market.

Re:This article is useless

[CastrTroy]

If you look at all those technologies, the real advantage to the employer is that they allow you to make your employees work when they aren't at work. Knowing employees had phones at home was great because you could call them up at a moment's notice and get them to come in after hours. Personal computers aren't really necessary at the office. A mainframe would work just as well in many cases, but having employees with computers at home meant you could ask them to work from home, connecting to the mainframe if necessary. Email and Internet allowed employees to all be in touch and communicate when they were working at home. Cellular/Smart phones allowed people to be contacted even when they weren't home, but were out shopping, out on a date, or at the park with their kids. Having social networking at the office is just another way for employers to demand even more of our free time, without explicitly writing it out in the contract.

Re:This article is useless

[Rob Y.]

g. cloud services

For all the paranoia about cloud services eating your privacy, the one place where they're a no-brainer is as paid services targeting corporations. The cloud itself, in this case, could be hosted by the corporation - but in any case, it wouldn't be ad-funded, and there's no reason to think that a hosting organization would snoop on content they're paid not to snoop on.

But in this case step 3 ("is not perceived as useful...") has some entrenched interests helping to muddy the waters. Turns out there's a lot of software that's been written for the traditional desktop. Much of that is tied to a back-end database, and would be much easier to deploy and support if it were rewritten to live in the cloud. But many of these systems are extremely complex, and those rewrites are expensive. Until a viable competitor comes out with a cloud-based alternative, vendors try to justify their client-server wares based on their robust features - playing down their mediocre performance and abysmal supportability. In the face of the new-found popularity of cloud app architecture, some have tried to pass off Citrix server farms as 'the cloud'. Good luck with that...

Re:This article is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe for smaller or most companies, but in larger corporate places like IBM, GE, and most colleges, there was email in the late eighties. That was the time when email was slowly displacing fax for sending documents and letters.

still, nobody wants to use Yammer, so Facebook is just spending some of it's money chasing nothing

Re:This article is useless

[phantomfive]

. Hardly anyone I know under the age of 30 uses it unless they're foreign or looking for a new job.

Well yes, that is the point of LInked-in, to find jobs, and to keep in touch with people you know from work, but don't necessarily want to hear about their new puppy.

Re:This article is useless

[Archangel Michael]

Every Single Failure I've seen is based on YACC (Yet Another Communication Channel). It is just a distraction from the job. It is either too noisy or a ghost town.

Lets look at IM: when faced with using Hangouts, Lync, Skype, and GOTOMEETINGs, it is confusing for average people when or which to use. Redundant choices doesn't make things better. More options doesn't mean better options, or even better results.

Re:This article is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, Linked in has lost its original point.

it's turning business networks (which used to be private and secretive) to open , exploitative, and social. Much like facebook and twitter is nowadays. And turning business from a formal, gentleman's-club... to a corporate frat house. reminds me of how Las Vegas has become in the last 40 yrs.

Either way those looking for a networking site for better quality, fairness, and real opportunity--neither tool (assuming facebook is going in the same direction) will provide it.

Re:This article is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

If you group in colleges with "work" then you might aswell say "everyone with a job" already had internet at home so it was a big it in "workplaces".

Re:This article is useless

[LessThanObvious]

Better tools don't fix bad communication.

Re:This article is useless

[Anonymous Coward]

We have Yammer at my organisation and it is core to how we do business. It really comes down to having a proper implementation strategy & comms plan. I don't have the exact stats but it was something along the lines of 75% of all staff posted at least once point in 2012 - 2013. It is really hard to get value out of it unless you are a large, geographically dispersed organisation with a number of differentiated products and services - breaking down them metaphorical walls is where you'll get the true benefit.

Re:This article is useless

[steelfood]

There's a reason for this.

There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many of them spent at work. Workplaces will eventually settle on the most efficient tools. These aren't going to be the most powerful tools or even the simplest to use, but the ones who give people the most bang for their buck.

For communications, there's e-mail, IM, and the phone. For document management, there (should be) CMS. For sharing company documents, there's the internal website. For socializing, there's the water cooler.

Where these tools fit in... well, they don't. It takes more effort ("active champions, community managers, and a strategy to nurture") to make them work than the benefits gained over using the aforementioned methods.

Social sites like Facebook work because the links between people are usually physically separated relative to the importance of the communication (the more important the communication, the farther the physical separation). The physical networks are wide and slow, so the digital version has a purpose by making the networks closer and faster. At work, the physical network is close and fast. There's no need for a digital replacement, especially a complex one.

Disclaimer: We also "use" Yammer at work, but the conent is asinine mostly (at least when it's not someone being passive aggressive).

Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in time, I was just thinking that I don't share enough already. What I'm just wondering now is if they are going to allow selfies and if I am going to be cyberbullied.

Haven't we shared enough already. Isn't this just another avenue into your boss requesting access to your FB account to check what is posted on your FB work page. Or one step away from FB charging money for a "Premium" membership where you can read your employees posts etc.

Bob just liked that you have a new office chair! yea FB can go F themselves. Never was a part of it and all I see is people trying to impress each other with what they did.

Nope

[Bigbutt]

Not just no, but fuck no.

Having internal company correspondence, communication between groups and corporate offices will have valuable company information in Facebook's hands. We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.

Remember what Zuckerman said.

"They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, "I think I've grown and learned a lot" since those instant messages.

[John]

Re:Nope

[swb]

We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.

I'm curious how you'd know. Did someone trip a content filter/IDS trying to use it or did someone grab a laptop/tablet and demand to see what they were doing?

It sounds pretty fascist to shitcan someone like that, especially if the policy they were fired under wasn't fairly specific about Evernote-type services.

It seems hard to believe someone would risk immediate termination for Evernote. I've known people who liked it but I don't think I know anyone who'd say "Yeah, I like it so much I'd risk getting fired for it."

Re:Nope

[OzPeter]

It sounds pretty fascist to shitcan someone like that

In a right to work state in the US, you do not need a reason to be fired. (I'm skipping around protected classes here for simplicity)

Re:Nope

[Lunix Nutcase]

That would actually be the opposite. You're thinking states with at-will employment.

Re:Nope

[swb]

Right, but you generally DO need a reason to deny them unemployment compensation -- they have to be fired for cause and the rules are quite strict.

I've fired somebody with what HR said were well-documented for-cause reasons just to have the person appeal and the state find in their favor and award unemployment. In my case they felt that the letters written and the HR policy weren't quite specific enough about not showing up for work and claiming "vacation" in an email at 9:30 AM.

Maybe some places don't care, but usually there's some kind of dollar cost to companies that do a lot of at-will terminations that result in unemployment compensation.

Re:Nope

[OzPeter]

That would actually be the opposite. You're thinking states with at-will employment.

Yeah .. my oops

Re:Nope

[OzPeter]

Right, but you generally DO need a reason to deny them unemployment compensation -- they have to be fired for cause and the rules are quite strict.

I'm not denying that .. I was trying to point out that in the words of the OP I was replying to that the states allow companies to be even more "fascist" than what he was implying.

Re:Nope

[NeutronCowboy]

I worked in the past at a company that did something similar to a "Facebook at work". The number one rule to get people to use it: never, EVER call it "Facebook for work". Call it "Shining Communications Turd", "Chainsaw through productivity", "Free Crack", just don't call it "Facebook for work".

I think Facebook might have a bigger uphill battle here than it thinks.

We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.

Where did you work, the NSA?

Re:Nope

[tompaulco]

In my case they felt that the letters written and the HR policy weren't quite specific enough about not showing up for work and claiming "vacation" in an email at 9:30 AM.

Where I work, I think that the unemployment office would find that the vacation policy contains far too much of trying to have their cake and eat it too on the part of the employer. Here, they went from 2 weeks of vacation with unlimited carryover plus sick days to X number of weeks of vacation including sick leave depending on seniority. People like me who ha been here for 8 years lost $25k or more in vacation time due to the change in policy. However, even though they went to this PTO option, they still require you to schedule your time months in advance. Also, if you quit or are fired, they only pay you for half of your earned PTO time,because they figure that half of that is sick leave. I'm sorry, but if it is earned, it is earned and you are entitled to it. Are they going to start firing people right before payday and then not paying them for the last two weeks of work as well?
I refused to sign this new policy, but my boss says that doesn't matter. The company policy is company policy. In which case, why do they need people to sign it?

Re:Nope

[kilfarsnar]

Not just no, but fuck no.

Having internal company correspondence, communication between groups and corporate offices will have valuable company information in Facebook's hands. We've had people walked out, fired, for using Evernote in meetings.

Remember what Zuckerman said.

"They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg in one of the instant messages, first published by former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson at Silicon Alley Insider, and now confirmed by Zuckerberg himself in Jose Antonio Vargas's New Yorker piece. Zuckerberg now tells Vargas, "I think I've grown and learned a lot" since those instant messages.

[John]

I thought the same thing when I read TFS. My company deals with secret stuff and wouldn't want their data flowing through Facebook's servers. We block cloud storage as it is.

Re:Nope

[Bigbutt]

It was a combination of similar events. He'd been caught taking video inside the company, walking around with his iPad up and recording. Evernote was the well known trigger. And he was a manager (still is just somewhere else). We are pretty picky about electronics. The sign at the front entrance says we're not allowed to bring in USB keys and other personal electronics (like laptops or wireless only tablets). But again, that is more to the "don't let personal devices access the corporate wired/wireless network" and "don't plug personal USB keys into your laptop or the servers". The company supplies hardened USB keys if necessary. Heck, we're not permitted to take pictures of servers in the data center. I have access to the data center archives so can use company approved server images (helps when we have remote hands out and we don't want the wrong server powered off).

I will say that the company deals with human lives in the US and Canada on a daily basis. We were even the subject of a recent Slashdot article :)

[John]

Re:Nope

[drolli]

Fascist? Nope.

Your Employer provides with tools and guidelines. if something is not explicitly allowed, then it is your responsibility to check if it is according to the rules of the company. Giving up the control over data usually is not acceptable.

If you use tools which essentially give up the control over the data to any third party (as you do in evernote), possibly even with terms and conditions which have zero accountability of the service provider, just because you like a service because it is "practical and free".

These "practical and free" services would be where i as attacker would start targeted attacks.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds 100% reasonable to me - don't put company confidential out on the open web. Evernote is not secure.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

They need you to sign it to remove the possibility of protracted lawsuits. Otherwise, they can release you as you refuse to work under their terms, thus your contract becomes void. IANAL, so take that with the largish grain of salt you think it deserves, but that's how it was explained to me. PTO is usually never to the advantage of the employee.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

These "practical and free" services...

I would argue whether they are "practical" at all. Unless you encrypt everything you upload, it's not practical for anything that should remain confidential. Then there's the argument about whether it is "secure". Exactly what do you load locally and how does it affect your security? Evernote, for example, is an application with a rather large footprint from a security standpoint. Why would I allow it to be installed on company hardware if I'm concerned about security of said devices?

Re:Nope

[tlhIngan]

I'm curious how you'd know. Did someone trip a content filter/IDS trying to use it or did someone grab a laptop/tablet and demand to see what they were doing?

It sounds pretty fascist to shitcan someone like that, especially if the policy they were fired under wasn't fairly specific about Evernote-type services.

It seems hard to believe someone would risk immediate termination for Evernote. I've known people who liked it but I don't think I know anyone who'd say "Yeah, I like it so much I'd risk getting fired for it."

Probably a little from column A and a little from column B.

If your policy is to not allow cloud services, then yes, Evernote is bad. However, a lot of people only think "cloud services" as those like Google Drive, Dropbox, etc., and don't realize that Evernote too is a cloud service. And given how useful Evernote is, people probably expect it to be like another OneNote - a damn nice note-taking tool. The "cloud" part is completely hidden away and they unknowingly use it.

Re:Nope

[OzPeter]

Heck, we're not permitted to take pictures of servers in the data center.

I once worked on project in the US that used a bunch of Polish engineers. At the time certain computers were prohibited exports to behind the iron curtain (and this was well before the wall came down). Of course our project used such a particular mini-computer (I think it was a VAX) for doing some compiling that these Polish engineers needed. To assuage the US export control restrictions, this computer was put in a sealed cabinet that the Polish engineers couldn't access.

A short time later one of the engineers was visiting the Smithsonian, and saw that same model computer on display. So he took a photograph of it, printed it out and stuck it to the front of the cabinet at work!

Re:Nope

[Registered Coward v2]

Maybe some places don't care, but usually there's some kind of dollar cost to companies that do a lot of at-will terminations that result in unemployment compensation.

Yes, their premiums rise as claims increase, to a point. At that point, it is cheaper to layoff employees, let them collect unemployment, and then rehire them when demand picks back up since you've already maxed out your premiums. Seasonal employment is perfect for this, with employees getting a paid vacation through unemployment knowing they will be rehired when the season restarts. It's an economically rational approach to the problem of seasonal demand and low wage workers that works out well for both sides.

Re:Nope

[Archangel Michael]

They cannot arbitrarily change the contract, then claim you voided it by not agreeing to it. Accrued vacation is property of the employee, as accounted for by the employer. Any reasonable lawyer should be able to get it, and legal fees.

IANAL, so my opinion is worthless legal advice.

Blocked on proxies

[robmv]

Yea sure, business will want to unblock Facebook on their proxies just because you have a "For Work" version. It will not happen.

Re:Blocked on proxies

[jandersen]

Yea sure, business will want to unblock Facebook on their proxies just because you have a "For Work" version. It will not happen.

Who knows? Who cares? I currently work for a large company, where they actively encourage staff to use Linkedin and also have an internal, social thingie. I have been there once; all I saw was sales account managers and similar - the ones who enjoy grazing on their own navel fluff, basically.

Re:Blocked on proxies

[JaredOfEuropa]

Perhaps that's just what FB want to address, and set up a separate work version that can be unblocked while the private FB remains blocked. Even so, I wouldn't touch it with a 6.096m pole. The main issue with FB is not employees goofing off at work.

Facebook does not get it

[sinij]

In most fields, trying to do business networking through Facebook is a career-ending move. The brand is forever poisoned.

Farmville!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo! Faaaarrrrmmmvvviiillleee at work!

Another vector for tasks

[Anonymous Coward]

We have something like an internal Facebook where I work. It's a way to publicly be asked questions and assigned tasks. I already have enough email, thank you. Executives are only somewhat supportive because they have an obligation.

Re:Another vector for tasks

[nikhilhs]

Which software do you use for this?

Re:Another vector for tasks

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialcast

Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

... connect with professional contacts and collaborate over documents.”

No thank you. Facebook has shown time and time again that it has no ethics and is willing to sell any private information it can harvest, continually "resetting" privacy preferences in order to do so. I really do not want Facebook selling my companies documents to competitors.

The name of the new product?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's called Yammer.

No way businesses will allow this

[Bearhouse]

Let me see, who's going to go an explain to the boss that we should (a) allow users access to FB on work boxen, then (b) encourage them to share business documents on it?

Not me, thanks.

OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just use the phone, email, or even walk over to the next office to talk with someone.

Re:OR

[sinij]

As much as I personally prefer "walk over and talk", this becomes a lot less feasible with remote workforce. Typical development team these days is international and/or no longer tied to cubicles. Sure, there are still hell-holes that insist you sit in a box 9 to 5 (or more), but most allow telecommute. I think turning point was 08-09, when talented folks got tied to upsidedown mortgages and were no longer able to move to take the job.

No

[Ashenkase]

Thanks.

Office Version ?

[Juba]

At first read I thought that Facebook was developing a spreadsheet and a word processor...

Nope. NopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNope

[Overzeetop]

Sorry, I love Facebook. It's my connection to far-flung friends and the hub for my musical contacts. We share, we laugh, we pretend our lives matter. I don't accept any "friends" on FB with whom I work. FB.business will ultimately get linked to the FB.personal (because that's how marketing works) and that ain't happening for me.

Re:Nope. NopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNopeNope

[phayes]

I know a few people that use FB as a way to drum up business but they are generally self employed or in public facing jobs like Musicians announcing a new gig.

For the rest of us who are employees, & it's hard to stress this enough, FaceBook != LinkedIn!

I do not use FB through company ressources, it's for friends & family only. Work relations are through LinkedIn.

The two sets rarely have anything in common & that's how it will stay.

Depends on the security needs

[sjbe]

It sounds pretty fascist to shitcan someone like that, especially if the policy they were fired under wasn't fairly specific about Evernote-type services.

Depends on the company and who their customers are. If your customer is the defense department (for example) then they might be pretty sensitive about you posting information to Evernote.

Re:Depends on the security needs

[swb]

I'm not opposed to a draconian security policy, but I would imagine that one of the major training and education components of working somewhere like that IS training and education about what you can and can't do and what the consequences of doing the wrong thing.

I would expect that having a security clearance would mean I would be subjected to hours (days?) of training in dealing with secrets, where you can put them, where you can't, etc, and the consequences of violating these rules. Using Evernote would be totally unambiguous.

I guess I would also expect that they wouldn't just rely on soft compliance, that there would be technology designed to block access to it and serious (and again, well disseminated) rules about using non-compliant technology for work purposes (ie, you're not going to get away with using your LTE personal iPad in a company meeting because it is basically a circumvention device).

I just don't know how you get to the point where somebody is literally walked out of a building from a meeting after being "discovered" using Evernote. Either they were poorly informed or they were actively interested in obtaining secrets.

Re:Depends on the security needs

[penix1]

It isn't just secrets but any PII. Medical or financial for example. I work in state government and can tell you they have locked down many of these type of sites and track every keystroke and mouse click to include what sites you tried to get to even if it was blocked. It may be that they were fired at the meeting for a previous transgression (not necessarily transgressing at the meeting).

Re:Depends on the security needs

[sjbe]

I just don't know how you get to the point where somebody is literally walked out of a building from a meeting after being "discovered" using Evernote. Either they were poorly informed or they were actively interested in obtaining secrets.

I've met, worked with and (unfortunately) employed many people who were decidedly clueless. If it wasn't laid out in black and white for them they would inevitably do something stupid even when you or I would think it was absurdly obvious that the action was a bad idea. I've seen people surf for porn at work, mass email sensitive documents, fall asleep in the front row of a company meeting, post sensitive company or customer information to public websites, etc. In most cases the person was "surprised" to find out their behavior was wrong. At hospitals I've seen people perp-walked from the building for HIPPA violations like looking up information about VIP patients and on a few occasions posting information about it to their facebook page. If you work for a big accounting firm you might get escorted from the building on a first offense for putting client information to Evernote because doing so violates several regulations. Defense contractors is an obvious one.

Short version, never underestimate how clueless some people can be. Hell, a big part of my job is writing bullet proof work instructions because if something isn't spelled out clearly to a 4th grade reading level then people will do it wrong.

Re:Depends on the security needs

[Archangel Michael]

"because if something isn't spelled out clearly to a 4th grade reading level then people will do it wrong."

People will still do it wrong, even if you build all the instructions for 4th grader. The problem with people is that they are people (Myself included).

All tech companies move on each other

[Trachman]

However I doubt that I would like my colleagues and Linkedin business contacts to know about my: racing hamster, gunpowder musket and jedi religion hobbies.

There is a reason people keep certain professional distance at work, distance about personal and private life.

As an employer I would like to know how many children, how many husbands my new prospective employee has, something that is not even an option at Linkedin.

Re:All tech companies move on each other

[frank_adrian314159]

However I doubt that I would like my colleagues and Linkedin business contacts to know about my: racing hamster, gunpowder musket and jedi religion hobbies.

But that means you aren't being authentic! And how can you be passionate about your work if you're not authentically passionate? Once Facebook enters the workplace, it's only a matter of time until your social and work life will be entwined even more! And you'll be able to tell all of your "real world" friends about how awesomes your workspace is! And HOW MUCH YOU LOVE YOUR JOB! And to make sure, the company will put out guidelines as to how many posts you output per week (on your "own" time, if there's any left) you need to post to show your dedication to social interaction within the company! Show your authentic selfie! ON! FACEBOOK AT WORK!!!

OK. Sarcasm mode off. How did we get to a point where companies are actually talking about stuff like passion as a requirement for work? I have passion for women and my music and the skilled craft I pursue. But for a job? Well, let's just say it's fine to put in a day and a half's work for a day's pay, huh? Why ask us to fake passion for you, too? But I guess that's what whores always get asked for. And in the end, all of us who trade labor for money are that. Maybe we could look for a better economic system that didn't allow some to make unreasonable demands on others? But I guess that's just me...

Re:All tech companies move on each other

[BarbaraHudson]

As an employer I would like to know how many children, how many husbands my new prospective employee has

As an employer, you're not supposed to base hiring decisions on such information, so why would you want to know? "I don't want to hire a woman with kids because they'll take off too much sick time!" or "I only want single women because they can spend more time chained to their desk!" or, if the candidate is male, "Oh, they have a husband ... sorry, no gays allowed here!"

This setting 'asn't got much in it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Great. Just what I need, another 30 spams a day.

Because it worked well for SharePoint ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If SharePoint 2013's social crap didn't catch on then this won't either.

Hard to see it accepted

[swb]

Most managers I've dealt with think of Facebook as a time-waster. It's hard to see a brand acceptance of a Facebook-related service that's "for work".

I think most users associate it with their personal social lives and I would just about guarantee that Facebook would mandate linking your work profile to your social profile and most people would reject that.

For better or for worse, I think LinkedIn already is seen as the "work" social networking site and has the network effect going for it.

If I want to interact with my workmates

[Anonymous Coward]

I can use internal email, phone, or walk to their office. Why do i need Facebook for work?

Re:If I want to interact with my workmates

[Chrisq]

I can use internal email, phone, or walk to their office. Why do i need Facebook for work?

Like!

like MySpace for adults

[GodWasAnAlien]

Wishful thinking.

I am confused

[Anonymous Coward]

allow professional users to message colleagues, connect with professional contacts and collaborate over documents

But I've had that for decades. It's called "email", and it allows me to do all those things without involving Facebook.

Sold!

[MagickalMyst]

I think they only way they could be successful is if they (Facebook) bought Linkedin.

Unless a company's official website is a Facebook page or your work requires Facebook use (advertising, law enforcement), I just don't see companies allowing you to waste time with the world's largest gossiping tool - Facebook, Workbook, Wastebook, or whatever.

> "They trust me — dumb fucks," says Zuckerberg

Zuckerberg is a weiner.

Re:Sold!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they bought linkedin, they'd never be successful either.
There would be such a mass exodus from linkedin if Zuckerbug were to get his hands on that data...

Collaborate over documents ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Collaborate over documents" ? (sound of jaw hitting floor)

More like let Facebook (and by association the NSA etc.) rifle through your confidential works documents.

Seriously when are people going to grok the idea that using anything "cloud" or "other peoples services" to store data/collaborate etc. is just simply giving your data away for somebody else to use ? It's just a monumentally dumb idea.

Oh well I'm sure the idiots will use it as usual...

LinkedIn competitor?

[tomhath]

Facebook may be coming out with an office version to take on LinkedIn

If they keep it at that level it might have a chance - generic communication related to your professional life, separate from your personal life.

That said, I don't know how any enterprise besides recruiting firms could embrace LinkedIn. It's just a big resume posting site for headhunters to mine.

nightmare

[slashmydots]

Oh boy, it combined personal facebook accounts with work, will have ads, will be a privacy nightmare, and Zuckerberg will personally read all your spreadsheets. Sounds like a great plan!

Needs a dose of Dogbert

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked in the past at a company that did something similar to a "Facebook at work". The number one rule to get people to use it: never, EVER call it "Facebook for work". Call it "Shining Communications Turd", "Chainsaw through productivity", "Free Crack", just don't call it "Facebook for work".

I think Facebook might have a bigger uphill battle here than it thinks.

The Zuck isn't smart enough and his minions aren't devious enough. If they want "FB at work" to succeed they need to take a page from Dogbert...

LinkedIn already has the execs action sewn up through that "Influencers" puffery. An workable market plan for FB at work needs to focus on the minions while leveraging the execs desires:
1) soft peddle the FB name to avoid execs thinking it's something employees might enjoy
2) launch it as an employee interconnection platform with highly available enterprise apps, said apps to include things employees are required to use
3) app 1: help desk scaled for both corporate level and team specific. Story is that employee interconnection will allow more trouble tickets to be resolved by other employees instead of the help desk so you need fewer HD folks
4) app 2: performance ranking app that facilitates managers interchanging employee performance data without the usual weeks of meetings at year end

These two initial apps give FB insight into tools the company uses, which of their employees should be approached by a headhunter and lots of other marketable data.

Expand app set over time.

And there's the Dogbert way to get Catbert to buy into "FB at work"

So people can post pictures of corporate lunches?

[toonces33]

Or maybe lolcats with motivational messages from the CEO?

Seriously - F***erberg is just trying to blow more smoke up the backsides of people on Wall Street and try and convince them that he has a plan for "growth". If they were to admit that they have maxed out the number of people, the stock price would plummet.

Who uses LinkedIn?

[userw014]

I've yet to see the usefulness of LinkedIn and I've maintained a profile since 2008. It seems to be a place where people set up a profile when they're looking for a job, but I've yet to notice anyone actually find a job through it. It seems to survive only because it has (somehow) tagged itself as the "business" or "professional" networking site, something that it fails to deliver.

What it does deliver - with some regularity - is compromised services. LinkedIn is the poster-child for why you should NEVER reuse passwords.

Re:Who uses LinkedIn?

[LessThanObvious]

It's good for self promotion and too know whats happening in your former colleagues careers and maintain contact. I don't want to have to worry about updated personal email addresses for 300 people every time they change. Yes, I probably contact someone through the site at most twice a year, but it keeps me connected and gives exposure when wanted. I turn off public search-ability when I'm not looking for a job. I've also had at least one friend tell me an interviewer knocked him for not having a well developed Linkedin profile. I can almost understand that if you just have a resume on your desk and you are trying to evaluate someone, but once the actual human being is sitting in front of you in an interview, who gives a fuck about their Linkedin?

Facebook for work, no thanks. Facebook is not trusted and their thinking is off. Linkedin partly has value because it is outside your office sphere, but it is socially OK to be out there, where as being on job hunting websites is frowned upon by HR. Facebook for work would, at best be the all-out bullshit zone. A place where you network with peers and business contacts and paint some fluffed up edited version of yourself for professional consumption. In my reality there is more risk there than there is benefit. I have enough worries about what Linkedin does with my info, I won't be opening up more.

Re:Who uses LinkedIn?

[pizzicar]

Perhaps it's an aberration but the job I have now came to me through Linkedin and resulted in a 20% pay jump. I have been contacted by recruiters several times via Linkedin for potential jobs but currently have no interest in leaving. Granted, I am a data point of one, but success there may have more to do with skill sets and specific keywords that recruiters are looking for.

If it exports to odf

[FithisUX]

I'm interested

Wasn't There a Seinfeld Episode...

[SixFactor]

...about Worlds Colliding?

Yes, there was: The Pool Guy> .

They mostly go against SalesForce

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't go against google, or LinkedIn. Not really.
They go against Microsoft Lync and against SalesForce Chatter.
It sounds like they copy Chatter, which is ironic since Chatter copies Facebook.

Chatter is moderately successful. Facebook whatever, would probably have the same success rate.

Jive

[Anonymous Coward]

We already use Jive at my company, it is similar to facebook. It is a pretty good.