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.
1 year, 8 months ago by gauravkanoongo
http://jaiku.com/channel/OpenSocial/presence/16584770
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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)
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months ago by gauravkanoongo
A homogenous social graph = homogenous social network Interoperating social networks = web = death of large social networks = Google's real motivations?
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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?
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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'.
1 year, 8 months ago by EirePreneur
We're evolving as a species and most of us will inhabit a federated social network before long.
1 year, 8 months ago by topgold
I agree.. the future is niche interconnected networks that each provide core value to their respective niches.
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months ago by sxoop
OpenSocial is less about the 'blogospherication' of SNs and more about the 'widgetization' of SNs.
1 year, 8 months ago by sxoop
Boyo, lol. Now there's a class teacherish comment. Young Mr. Corbett!
1 year, 8 months 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)
1 year, 8 months 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
1 year, 8 months ago by EirePreneur
@EirePreneur - I stand guilty as charged (see my last comment on this thread) ;-p
1 year, 8 months 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.
1 year, 8 months ago by josiefraser
David Recordon's Open Social comments from BarCamp Berlin: http://daveman692.livejournal.com/318359.html - they pretty much nail the key q's. He's speaking at Eduserve OpenID event on the 8th: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/events/openid2007 - registration has closed but we'll probably be heading to a pub afterwards.
1 year, 8 months 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/opensocial-critiques/
Looks like I have to add myself to the list of the disappointed. No grand vision or scope, just widgets on SNs.
1 year, 8 months ago by conoro