Totally agree with that. Another advantage Facebook has is that
it appears to understand people and doesn't define them in terms of
algorithms. Google might not say it, since they're not evil but
they have a very low regard for people, this is seen in robot
voices if you ring them and auto-responders if you email them. In
an ideal Google world AIs would create the data and their services
would manipulate it.
Except the comparison is not with Goog/Orkut, it's between FB
and other SocNets. I've never really got the sense that FB
got people. From the silly US-only "how do you know this
person" to the click-here emails, they have a long way to go in
terms of the basics. But as Fred says, FB is the current
ego-centric winner.
I don't think the next ego winner has even been built yet but in
any case I'm far more interested in the multiple verticals/niches
than the general "i'm bored I'm bored" ones.
I think FB understands what people want more than most (except
maybe Yahoo! but they're almost a lost cause), thus the default
lack of privacy allowing you to nose about the profiles of others,
the seeing what friends your friends have and the ability to see
the friends of those friends and the ability to add any of them.
Compare that to LinkedIn.
The social graph or stalker wall allows you to see what all your
friends are doing and how they're interacting and again allows you
to be nosey. All the while increasing pageviews and actually
helping people to interact. This is a very people-centric thing to
make. It's a summary of what everyone you're connected to is doing.
Were it not for that I would think the interactions would go way
down. I know I get half the connects on Facebook from people
looking at what I've done via their "graph".
Then we have the status message which while not really "out
there" in terms of technology has used the trend of people on IM
services changing their sign-in names to something more and as an
additional way of creating a launchpad for an
interaction/conversation.
Most of the other social networks just copied that and here they
are now just signing up to Google, blindly thinking that by copying
Facebook applications, they can be Facebook.
Also disappointed by Yahoo. They bought all the right companies
and then did nothing with them. 360 was a bad joke. Still have some
forlorn hope that they can shock us all and stop being so 1996 (as
someone called them during the week)
We need a truly Open Social Graph, which may have user's data
distributed across many sites in a standard manner, but these
social sites should be able to inter-operate with each other.
A homogenous social graph = homogenous social network
Interoperating social networks = web = death of large social
networks = Google's real motivations?
I don't think the niche model will ever wipe out peoples herd
mentality - although there's no doubting that small networks &
white label products are on the rise. A meta layer would allow for
effective federation across networks - along with, of course,
monitization of all kinds.
"Interoperating social networks = web = death of large social
networks"
Exactly. OpenSocial = Blogospherification of the SNSs. Who cares
whether I'm 'on TypePad', 'on WordPress' or 'on Blogger' anymore?
People don't congregate 'on Moveable Type'.
I don't think niche interconnected networks will be the future.
I think Google wants that to screw with Facebook is all. I do think
interconnections will be a facet of the future though but still
think the next step after Facebook will have a future.
And back to Yahoo. Dey cudda bin da conteda for that meta-layer.
A sexy integrated overlay on Flickr, delicious, Upcoming, mobile
etc would be something I'd use. But they are a "media" company (or
so they think) so they'll never be able to execute on it. Unless
Salim is cooking up something in the Brickhouse.
@EirePreneur - not so
fast there boyo. From what I've seen of OpenSocial I don't see any
comparisons with what RSS/Atom did for blogging. Let's all do some
more digging and less of the grand-visioneering before we declare
opensocial a victory.
On top of that I follow it up with perhaps the
stupidest-sounding sentence ever - did I really use
'blogospherication' and 'widgetization' in the same sentence. I
deserve to be shot (or at least do a guest post on techcrunch)
Agreed @sxoop despite the
clunky but unavoidable language. OpenSocial has probably caught
fire so quick because the name suggests it might be something that
some people would actually like - something open and social. It
isn't really either. Great branding though. Reminds me of when fb
were talking about being an open platform.
25 comments so far
Thanks, I am forwarding it to #OpenSocial.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by gauravkanoongo.
http://jaiku.com/channel/OpenSocial/pres...
9 months, 4 weeks ago by gauravkanoongo.
Totally agree with that. Another advantage Facebook has is that it appears to understand people and doesn't define them in terms of algorithms. Google might not say it, since they're not evil but they have a very low regard for people, this is seen in robot voices if you ring them and auto-responders if you email them. In an ideal Google world AIs would create the data and their services would manipulate it.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by DamienMulley.
Except the comparison is not with Goog/Orkut, it's between FB and other SocNets. I've never really got the sense that FB got people. From the silly US-only "how do you know this person" to the click-here emails, they have a long way to go in terms of the basics. But as Fred says, FB is the current ego-centric winner.
I don't think the next ego winner has even been built yet but in any case I'm far more interested in the multiple verticals/niches than the general "i'm bored I'm bored" ones.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by conoro.
I think FB understands what people want more than most (except maybe Yahoo! but they're almost a lost cause), thus the default lack of privacy allowing you to nose about the profiles of others, the seeing what friends your friends have and the ability to see the friends of those friends and the ability to add any of them. Compare that to LinkedIn.
The social graph or stalker wall allows you to see what all your friends are doing and how they're interacting and again allows you to be nosey. All the while increasing pageviews and actually helping people to interact. This is a very people-centric thing to make. It's a summary of what everyone you're connected to is doing. Were it not for that I would think the interactions would go way down. I know I get half the connects on Facebook from people looking at what I've done via their "graph".
Then we have the status message which while not really "out there" in terms of technology has used the trend of people on IM services changing their sign-in names to something more and as an additional way of creating a launchpad for an interaction/conversation.
Most of the other social networks just copied that and here they are now just signing up to Google, blindly thinking that by copying Facebook applications, they can be Facebook.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by DamienMulley.
Agree re the whole noseyness thing.
Also disappointed by Yahoo. They bought all the right companies and then did nothing with them. 360 was a bad joke. Still have some forlorn hope that they can shock us all and stop being so 1996 (as someone called them during the week)
9 months, 4 weeks ago by conoro.
The new Yahoo! Mash is also so boring.
We need a truly Open Social Graph, which may have user's data distributed across many sites in a standard manner, but these social sites should be able to inter-operate with each other.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by gauravkanoongo.
A homogenous social graph = homogenous social network Interoperating social networks = web = death of large social networks = Google's real motivations?
9 months, 4 weeks ago by DamienMulley.
Heh and on reflection this is why Jaiku is a million times better than Twitter. God bless threading and no 140 char limit in replies.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by DamienMulley.
I think you may be right. A thousand small niche networks with Google being the meta layer and ad layer on top?
9 months, 4 weeks ago by conoro.
I don't think the niche model will ever wipe out peoples herd mentality - although there's no doubting that small networks & white label products are on the rise. A meta layer would allow for effective federation across networks - along with, of course, monitization of all kinds.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by josiefraser.
"Interoperating social networks = web = death of large social networks"
Exactly. OpenSocial = Blogospherification of the SNSs. Who cares whether I'm 'on TypePad', 'on WordPress' or 'on Blogger' anymore? People don't congregate 'on Moveable Type'.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by EirePreneur.
We're evolving as a species and most of us will inhabit a federated social network before long.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by topgold.
I agree.. the future is niche interconnected networks that each provide core value to their respective niches.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by MarcusMacInnes.
I don't think niche interconnected networks will be the future. I think Google wants that to screw with Facebook is all. I do think interconnections will be a facet of the future though but still think the next step after Facebook will have a future.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by DamienMulley.
And back to Yahoo. Dey cudda bin da conteda for that meta-layer. A sexy integrated overlay on Flickr, delicious, Upcoming, mobile etc would be something I'd use. But they are a "media" company (or so they think) so they'll never be able to execute on it. Unless Salim is cooking up something in the Brickhouse.
9 months, 4 weeks ago by conoro.
@EirePreneur - not so fast there boyo. From what I've seen of OpenSocial I don't see any comparisons with what RSS/Atom did for blogging. Let's all do some more digging and less of the grand-visioneering before we declare opensocial a victory.
9 months, 3 weeks ago by sxoop.
OpenSocial is less about the 'blogospherication' of SNs and more about the 'widgetization' of SNs.
9 months, 3 weeks ago by sxoop.
Boyo, lol. Now there's a class teacherish comment. Young Mr. Corbett!
9 months, 3 weeks ago by DamienMulley.
On top of that I follow it up with perhaps the stupidest-sounding sentence ever - did I really use 'blogospherication' and 'widgetization' in the same sentence. I deserve to be shot (or at least do a guest post on techcrunch)
9 months, 3 weeks ago by sxoop.
Walter 1: "Let's all do some more digging and less of the grand-visioneering"
Walter 2: "OpenSocial is less about the 'blogospherication' of SNs and more about the 'widgetization' of SNs."
Yes sir, whatever you say sir! ;-p
9 months, 3 weeks ago by EirePreneur.
@EirePreneur - I stand guilty as charged (see my last comment on this thread) ;-p
9 months, 3 weeks ago by sxoop.
Agreed @sxoop despite the clunky but unavoidable language. OpenSocial has probably caught fire so quick because the name suggests it might be something that some people would actually like - something open and social. It isn't really either. Great branding though. Reminds me of when fb were talking about being an open platform.
9 months, 3 weeks ago by josiefraser.
David Recordon's Open Social comments from BarCamp Berlin: http://daveman692.livejournal.com/318359... - they pretty much nail the key q's. He's speaking at Eduserve OpenID event on the 8th: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/eve... - registration has closed but we'll probably be heading to a pub afterwards.
9 months, 3 weeks ago by josiefraser.
For the technically inclined, read Nooked CTO John O'Shea's series of analyses of OpenSocial. http://www.xlml.com/aehso/2007/11/04/ope...
Looks like I have to add myself to the list of the disappointed. No grand vision or scope, just widgets on SNs.
9 months, 3 weeks ago by conoro.