Valleywag
Google couldn't get a piece of Facebook or its hot apps platform, so now it's building its own. Not that it would like people to call it Google's platform; it's trying to persuade people that this is an open platform. It's called OpenSocial, and it's supposed to force developers to reconsider writing apps solely in FBML, the Facebook platform's proprietary language. The idea is that Google will gather a gang of websites whose users combined, will offer an audience as large as Facebook's. It's a fine theory, but let's see the real numbers behind the Google Gang.
Or, rather, pretty charts. They're easier, right?
Here's the U.S. monthly visits for Facebook vs. destination social networks Orkut, Friendster, Plaxo and LinkedIn — all Google partners:
Here's the U.S. monthly visits for Facebook vs. some of Google's other varied new partners, Newsgator, Xing, Ning, and Salesforce.com. For the record, Xing and Ning are not related.
If I'm a developer, I'm still going to Facebook first. Google says these partners reach an audience of over 100 million users globally. But the problem is that all those users are in different networks. Viral success in one network won't necessarily spill over into another.
A better solution for Google? Rework its MySpace search and advertising contract on more favorable terms for News Corp., and in return, get MySpace to sign up for OpenSocial.
Look at what happens when you drop bottomfeeder Plaxo from the list of social networks and add MySpace instead:
The incentive for MySpace, of course, is that this solution would save News Corp. execs the hassle of looking up exactly what an open platform is, exactly. Or having to figure out how to look up definitions on the Internet. Or the Internet.
Comments
There are only about 10-15 apps that have noticable market share, and not many even have a business model (Seriously. Zombies vs. Vampires vs. etc.?).
The only value to Facebook apps is attracting MySpace users. The platform was just a way to let people show off their lack of taste on a website other than MySpace.
And Google's cloning this?
In fairness to Google, they have a rich history of cloning what their competitors do better just because they can, not because they'll make money from it.
They did pretty well ripping off Overture...
The point of this piece probably wouldn't have been as easy to make had the author done his/her homework and realized that hi5.com was also among the partners invovled in the release. I believe hi5.com has close to 40 million montly unique visits. A hi5.com line in the graph would have made Facebook's line look less impressive.
Also, since the author chose to use the words "gang up", why didn't the graph show all of the montly visits for the partners aggregated vs. facebook's? This would have been more appropriate, but then it would have been much harder to create yet another valleywag post doting on facebook.
Seems to me the Google strategy here is to recognize the "site of the moment" is likely to change. First Friendster, then MySpace, then Facebook -- what next? The play here is to operate at an infrastructure level rather than try to be that "site of the moment". It's just like the AdSense platform: Yes they'd rather own all those content sites and not have to give away so much of the revenue, but then they'd have to place bets about where the public is going to go. Better to serve ads (or social data) to everyone as an infrastructure player.
It's the infrastructure players who always win long-term: Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, etc. The app/content companies are too exposed to the fickleness of the market and ultimately never get much lock-in.
German documentary gets inside the cult
Well-known Jew, Internet forefather Vent Cerf defends Google Haulocost deniers on creepy PBS Google documentary:
[www.nposales.com]
Claims Internet giant strives to be "neutral" in matters of "opinion."
And isn't Cerf a little old to be speaking for Google (sure he helped create the Internet, but he's over 35!)
So it's Orkut with a new name and an API. Don't tell Brazil.
[www.nytimes.com]
What a useless analysis. Maybe you should stick to reporting on parties and sex scandals.
Google's approach will make lots of tiny networks more viable. Those in aggregate could force Facebook back to being a place to see pictures of your classmates--the only thing that it's really any good at in the first place.
Any real developer welcomes a release from Facebook's stranglehold on apps. No one wants to deal with their downtime or keep up with their constant changes forever, we don't want risk them replicating our apps if they show any promise (I can't wait to see iLike features in Facebook music). And really, an ad network targeted towards private personal info is scary--even if done by an arguably trustworthy business like Google (certainly not Microsoft or Facebook).
@appetite: The only problem with your argument is that Open Social API is an empty promise unless each of the host networks implements the same policies. At least Facebook is the devil everyone knows.
There is a reason why there is only one big platform category winner.
Maybe I'm missing something but your comment looks like just a bunch of words to me. I genuinely don't know what problem in my argument that you are pointing out.
How would diversification of an app across networks not solve all of the problems confronting apps on Facebook?
Social networks are what? A collection of people. What technology does Facebook have that makes it better than, say, Friendster? If Google makes it easier to jump from network to network, keeping the features that you like without having to do a lot of work, then that's a threat to Facebook--which is big because it is big because it is big because...
@appetite: Here's what I want to know. Will LinkedIn users be able to interact with hi5 users throughapps developed for OpenSocial? Do the social graphs combine? If no, then I'm not impressed. If yes, the next question is: will hi5 members want to interact with LinkedIn members?
@appetite: You sound like someone who has not actually tried to develop an app. Perhaps you are one of those MBA tourists?
@AlleyWag: You are completing my argument. The devil is in the details. OpenSocial risks becoming just like POSIX - a supposed standard uniting different UNIX flavors. Which is useless since everyone has incompatible implementation due to their business interests.
OpenSocial is FUD, smoke and mirrors.
Google is falling behind and has to resort to the tactics of the age long past, taking a page from Microsoft and IBM playbooks.
Haha. Facebook is a Microsoft. FBML? FQL? FBScript? Canvas pages? Aren't those just web pages that two sites can now redundantly claim as page views? What are the top apps on Facebook? Features of Myspace.
Google is launching with sites that I can instantly write applications for. Whether I can combine social graphs or people want to connect across LinkedIn and Hi5 doesn't mean shit right now. It's not hard to conceive of sites with similar demographics where people WOULD want to interact. Do you really expect or even want Facebook to cover every social niche that that can be accommodated on the web? I mean, really?
@appetite: > Do you really expect or even want Facebook to cover every social niche that that can be accommodated on the web?
Yes, that is the genius of the social graph and the reason Facebook is leaving everyone else in the dust. The separation of social utility and application layers. Facebook redesigned their business around this approach. Everyone else is desperate to catch up.
As a developer I do not want the hassle of dealing with social graph policies of seven dwarves. That is why platform game is winner-take-all.
After reading all this, I'm siding with the Google supporters. Why? Because Google IS thinking globally. Nobody cares about Orkut except Brazilians, and Brazil is where? somewhere in South America in American minds? It's off the radar for Americans, mostly -- but it's very much ON the radar for Brazilians. Or what about rappers (hi5.com)? There's an entire world beyond the demographic that frequents Facebook and it's that Google is going for. They're not building social networks -- they're building social network infrastructure. So, let's say I start a social network for bikers. I use OpenSocial ID, so if I want developers to come work on my network, they should be familiar with the platform, making it easier for me to do business. It will also be easier for me to use if I am a biker who also runs a company (LinkedIn) -- and they DO exist. So my tiny social network doesn't have anywhere near the power of Facebook, but it makes me and my biker friends happy. And who ultimately wins in the equation? Google.
@nicholas: nice post & analysis. saw your post after i saw bill tancer's piece, but you've both made excellent observations.
@appetite: seriously dude, you're clueless. developers do care about big audiences, and OpenSocial has an uphill climb. niche audiences / long tail of social networks has potential, but in the aggregate they have to be bigger than MySpace and Facebook to be worth spending time developing to a separate standard.
I think Elvenjewel gets it. Thank you. There are a ton of niche networks out there and some of them are better at accommodating their niche than Facebook ever will be. Google is helping to make them viable.
@DaveMcclure.. Oh thanks for ending the debate. You teach a Facebook class and write a blog so you must be know everything there is to know. At the risk of disagreeing with the Facebook platform genius wizard that is Dave McClure, I still argue that developers care about users and revenue for apps. That's all their loyalty will be to. If they can get them elsewhere just as effectively, they will either jump ship or split their focus. And that will be good for the web as a whole.
@appetite: > If they can get them elsewhere just as effectively, they will either jump ship or split their focus.
That is a very big IF. Let's see how much of OpenSocial is hype vs reality
Yes, let's see. Let's not just knock it from the start because we've invested too much into hyping Facebook over the past 5 months.
Now that Myspace is in, even the idiotic fanboys like 500 guy have to admit that FB is in trouble.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?