Facebook abandons its currency

The social network is phasing out "Credits", allowing people to use real money again

Facebook has announced in a post on its developer blog that it is phasing out its proprietary currency, Facebook Credits, and allowing developers to deal in normal people money again.

The introduction of Credits across the network was part of Facebook's aim to monetise its business beyond its core strength in advertising, as well as strengthening its position as a burgeoning platform for app development (incedentally, "app" overtook "application" in search traffic just before Christmas 2010). The intention was to allow developers to abstract their payments from the fiddly process of accepting difference currencies at changing exchange rates, while guaranteeing Facebook a cut.

In practice, though, the most numerous and popular paid apps on Facebook are games, and most of them implement transactions through their own currencies. This introduced a fiddly two-step process – change money into Facebook credits, then credits into in-game money – which slowed uptake of the games.

Facebook has now cut out the middleman in appearance, if not in practice. Developers will be able to accept payments directly, but must still use the company's own payment system, which will continue to take a 30 per cent cut.

Facebook's Prashant Fuloria writes:

By supporting pricing in local currency, we hope to simplify the purchase experience, give you more flexibility, and make it easier to reach a global audience of Facebook users who want a way to pay for your apps and games in their local currency. With local pricing, you will be able to set more granular and consistent prices for non-US users and price the same item differently on a market-by-market basis.

A step back for Facebook, but it is in everyone's interest that they get a strong payment system off the ground eventually. Even if their 30 per cent cut for developers is untenable for consumers, the internet remains in sore need of a viable competitor the dreaded PayPal.

Tetris on Facebook. Now taking dollars! Though not pounds for some reason.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland