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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.