One of the knocks against Facebook is that it is a somewhat closed, proprietary platform. Here’s how the argument goes: The ultimate technology platform, in contrast, is the Web itself. It is open and ultimately will triumph over all other platforms, including Facebook. Any innovations that take hold in closed environments are quickly replicated on the open Web. At some point network effects take over, and the utility of those innovations on the Web supercede those on the original platform.
Anil Dash furthers this argument in a post today:
Think of the web, of the Internet itself, as water. Proprietary platforms based on the web are ice cubes. They can, for a time, suspend themselves above the web at large. But over time, they only ever melt into the water. And maybe they make it better when they do.
So how long does Facebook have before it melts into the Web?
A: That won’t start to happen until you can take your friends (i.e., your social graph) with you.
Interesting way to think about it…
Nice, we got our next duncan riley.
The same amount of time it took people to realize how limited AOL was.
It’s not about “taking my friends with me”.
My friends exist independently of Facebook– I see them all the time, talk to them on the phone, IM them, SMS them, email them.
It’s about being able to manage the data we share on Facebook in a decentralized way. It’s the tools that make Facebook what it is, not the friends. I don’t need Facebook to tell me who my friends are, I need it to help me stay in touch with them.
Facebook apps are all useless. Superpoke is not the future of software/web apps. Facebook itself is extremely overrated. The “social graph” seems to migrate to the coolest new fad or tech.
Zuckerberg should’ve sold for a billion.
One Knock?
Konck, knock, knock, knock, knock,…….
The main problem with FaceBook is that the backend source binaries convergence don’t equate to parameters congruent with 32 bit code limiters in parallel progressive core syntax translators of more than translitertant coding ques!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
AOL = Facebook.
AOL Profiles = Facebook profiles. AOL Mail = Facebook mail. AOL Channels = Facebook apps.
The biggest coupe de grace that AOL managed to stumble into was instant messaging. They conceived of the Buddy List idea and for years made it closed. People tried to startup external applications to hook into AOL IM but attempts were all rejected.
Eventually people realized at just how shitty the AOL world was. How bad AOL Mail was. How bad the AOL channels were. How bad the AOL Chat Rooms… okay not so much the chat rooms. But everything else. Eventually AOL had to relent. IM is now open (or as open as it can be with a megacorporation lording over it) and AOL became slowly a subscription service to an addon service to your broadband to just a content company and now an advertising company.
All of that took 20 years. Facebook doesn’t have the scale that AOL nor an actual business model. I hope to god I don’t have to be hearing about Facebook hype 20 years from now.
@4
That’s true. People realized that every possible service AOL provides, the Internet has a better version. It was like a wading pool compared to the Olympic lap pool.
Take your social graph with you? That’s like saying taking your Buddy List with you. NO ONE NEEDS IT. I know damn well who my close friends are, I see them in real life all the time.
Part of the reason for the bloated valuation is that you can’t think of anything else to talk about other than FB!
The ice will melt into the water when someone launches a web browser that does all the things that Facebook does and more and everyone likes it more than Facebook.
Seems to me like Facebook’s goal should be to entice developers (with openness, support, and $$) to create every conceivable app within the FB platform rather than outside of it, so that as an end-user, I’ll never have any reason (or desire) to “take my social graph elsewhere.”
If everything happens in Facebook, and everything I do I do with my friends via FB, why should I ever go to this “internet” you speak of? I’ll just go to Facebook.
Definitely see your point, though, and it will be interesting to see how this whole game changes when MySpace/Google/LinkedIn start opening up their own platforms.
Dan Ackerman Greenberg
Stanford ‘08
http://www.ackermangreenberg.com
TECHFACECRUNCH!
You all are still missing something big here. Facebook is the next iteration of the web. The standard web is crowded and ugly and messy and full of junk; it is arranged around entities putting stuff out there that hopefully attracts eyeballs. Facebook is doing it the other way around - making a “home” for people, and then slowly letting the good elements of the internet in, while keeping the rabble out.
The web will not get much better - apps that start with people will
These are all self-imposed paradigms and nothing more. They represent nothing in the context of reality. There are no walls that keep users in facebook.
I think Silicon Valley should be careful with their skewing of peoples’ perceptions for profit. It will eventually turn back on them.
Well, please let me reiterate facebook’s mission statement again.
“Facebook is a social utility that connects you with the people around you.”
For this reason it is simple to make comparisons between facebook and the web. However I believe that it is audacious to assume that there will be a point in time where the facebook platform is ever “melted” into the web, when in fact our end goal is to recreate the web itself.
You see, AOL had it coming because the web was open, easy to publish with, and was basically free. But now, the web has it coming. It’s challenger: Facebook.
My goal is not one of riches, it is to create a new paradigm.
-Mark
Another post about FB?
OMG. A TechCrunch post about someone else’s blog post mentioning “Facebook”.
Can we pleeeease have a week without mentioning Facebook??? Just a week.
Seriously, are you guys really that obsessed with Facebook that you had to post about it 62 times in this current calendar year? And we’re barely into October.
This post was really not worth our time or attention. Is there an RSS feed service that can filter out crap stories like this?
It’s totally about the social graph. I’m personally tired of people talking about Facebook as an evil walled garden or the next AOL, and here’s why: Facebook is not duplicating the Internet. Facebook is all about the social graph. By that I mean:
1. Facebook is serving a limited purpose. Bloggers talk about not being able to post content that everyone can access. But Facebook isn’t about posting content for everyone - it’s about sharing content on your social graph. You want to post public content? Start a blog - there are plenty of ways to do that outside of Facebook. Facebook was never meant to replace all other web sites and services.
2. Facebook ought to have walls. I don’t want everyone to see certain items of information about me. I sometimes want to share content with only my friends. I appreciate the fact that Facebook is a “walled garden” of sorts, since Facebook is about my social graph. If I want to start a public discussion about an issue, I’ll visit a public forum. But if I want to keep in touch with friends, I want to do so privately.
3. Facebook builds on the Internet. People talk about “the Internet” eventually doing what Facebook does. But Facebook is using Internet technology to operate. FBML is simply a template system, FQL a simplified query system. They’re not that different from existing systems used to customize other Internet applications - yet I don’t see people criticizing, say, Smarty. They render HTML, XML, CSS, and JavaScript. Facebook handles social graph functions, and applications run in a limited context that interacts with these functions. How is this much different from, say, a Joomla plug-in?
Facebook is a way to use the Internet to do a limited number of things, all involving the social graph. If I need to search the Internet, I will never visit Facebook - I’ll use a search engine. If I want to get general technology news, I come to sites like TechCrunch, not Facebook.
The only way I see Facebook “melting” into the Web is a decentralized social networking system similar to what some people have been envisioning… but I think even then there are issues that will prevent Facebook from ever going away entirely and that could ultimately hinder the decentralized approach.
This is not a closed environment. Anyone (generally speaking) can join Facebook. Anyone can create a Facebook application (and doing so barely requires more than HTML, CSS, and some server-side language).
Facebook is not duplicating the Internet. Facebook is all about the social graph.
It is interesting how people think. Appreciate it.
http://vidsonly.blogspot.com
Agree completely. Facebook is dead long-term as a closed environment. Been saying that for months.
http://www.bestcashcow.com/tec.....r-facebook
As a novice participant of social network I recently created an account on both facebook and linkedin.
On facebook I was alerted of a friends’s last status as “Looking for a dining table” which I presume was the update from his iphone letting his network know that he is dining out.
On linked in I was connected to some of the folks I had worked before but never had time to catch up etc.
As for me I’ve since then spent 90% of the social network time on linkedin and less than 10% on facebook.
I guess I represent the suburban dwelling high tech worker family man which would have obvious bias to linkedin but I’m still trying to fathom the
hype surrounding facebook. The vampire poke I thought was a bit silly even to figure out what it meant.
Was that really M. Zuckerberg? Dude, cash in!! I mean, facebook is *really* sweet, but “a new paradigm”? What, have you been reading Kuhn? Your assessment of the whole situation seems somewhat delusional.
@19: you are on the money
The reality of it is, my generation will continue using Facebook for social functions and the rest of the Internet for non-social functions.
Flickr is for photos
Google is for search
YouTube is for videos
Facebook is for online social interactions
I find it funny how everyone is reacting to Facebook as if it came out of the blue and turned into this mega superstar overnight. The only place where Facebook is a “fad” is on tech blogs like TechCrunch. Outside of this bubble of tech blogs and web 2.0 junkies, people’s feelings about Facebook really haven’t changed at all. It’s been on every high school and college kids radar screen for the past couple of years. It’s not like the masses are hyped about Facebook and all this Social OS talk — it’s just the people on here.
Try stepping outside the Tech world for a second and you’ll see what I mean.
One more comment:
Your headline is exactly what I’m talking about - it’s not “Facebook vs. The Web”. Facebook is not competing with the Web any more than Flickr or Blogger. Facebook is a part of the Web for performing certain functions, and it competes with other Web sites that offer serve similar functions, such as Myspace. Facebook is not going to make the Web go away - and vice versa.
@24: Thanks Boris, looks like we posted at the same time… as you can see, I agree.
“The reality of it is, my generation will continue using Facebook for social functions and the rest of the Internet for non-social functions.” Good way of putting it. Though you’ll still find “social” functions on the rest of the Internet, but that gets back to definitions - your point is right on.
This is what I think will limit Facebook’s growth:
I think distributed web application platforms will move *towards* a single standard based on human behavior and communication. Imagine a system that consolidates your mobile phone with your email with you contact list, and connects people in any given region. It is not a completely open system, but it is comprehensive, facilitates a winning business model, and should gain critical mass at the most critical point in human communication technology - distributed, mobile applications.
Facebook is neat, but where are the useful services? At least Google has documents, phone number consolidation, maps, and a mobile platform on the way. Social interaction has to be about *something*, not just virtual Vodka Cranberry or even virtual sports prediction pools. And lets not forget that enterprises like documents, databases and security.
So I think I agree with the idea behind this post. I think social networking will move away from very limited systems towards more comprehensive and flexible systems.
Social graph? FFS its a social network. “Social graph” is an extremely clever use of a mathematical label to make a way of storing data sound fantastic and new. Well done Mr Z.
Moving on, I’m closer to Slappenstance than theharmonyguy … Facebook need to tread carefully. No they’re not going anywhere fast, but there are allot of smart people doing a lot of smart things out there.
Ask most people why they’re on FB they will say “because all my friends are on it” NOT because “the FB API and applications are really cool”. IF the core activist usergroup of FB one day jumps ship, once enough of them do, the lemmings (i.e. the other 80% of users) likely will.
Of course, its never that simple, but its not impossible. It will come down to whether FB can keep up the pace of innovation and dynamism, as they grow from a start-up into an internet dinosaur.
Ultimately, Web 3.0 will one day arrive - and that means open standards, data that interopting systems can understand in context and the ability of users to aggregate their social data between services and indeed their profiles. OpenID is one tiny amoeba step towards this direction, but expect one of the attempts at microformatting in this space such as http://gmpg.org/xfn/ (or something a little for intelligent) to eventually stick to the wall. Then we’ll get to see how closed or open FB really is.
In order for Google to compete in social networking, I think they better figure out their privacy features. The main reason I was willing to use Facebook: privacy features so people-of-the-past don’t spam me or my friends and associates don’t see me.
No, social graphs are not suddenly going to morph into an open standard for many reasons. But social graphs are going to center around actual, useful communication and tasks. That is Google’s advantage over Facebook.
great thinking.. looks like facebook is trying to inovate the way we use the web… moved by us not just as “web 2.0″… It remembers me that book wrote by Steven Jhonson “emergency”, where the coletive intelligence succeded by emergent behaviors, I mean, what happens when a interconnected system of simple elements auto-organize itselfs to create a more intelligent behavior…
Wow, yet another Facebook article. Keep them coming TechCrunch, because really, this is all that matters to me.
what i don’t get about facebook or the facebook hype is this: most of its functionality is and can be duplicated elsewhere. yes facebook excels at offering an integrated im/messaging/games/forum platform (maybe “excels” is too strong. i personally hate the thing).
but it’s value lies in how people use it — to meet friends on campus and keep in touch with their other friends.
now what happens when facebook’s users get over the identity that they’ve created for themselves in this space? or when they realize they’ve outgrown their facebook friends and want to start fresh? or when they want to divorce themselves from their “so-and-so has the best tits on campus” reputation (i b.s. you not: there’s a group with a similar name in the american u. network)?
#2 made me laugh, however I think Erick has been pretty good about posting.
We can just hope that they will learn from AOL’s mistakes…
I agree that it will merge into the web itself. Why not have decentralized “social graph” servers just like we have decentralized name servers for domainIP translation? Why not use OpenID?
If FB was smart, they’d spearhead such open initiatives.
@tiffany
I agree with you mostly. Social interaction should be about something. So social networking should be integrated with useful web services.
But I will disagree about the “biggest tits on campus” thing you mentioned. It seems to me that the service provided by Facebook is online gossip. People want it. What a good social network should do is provide privacy tools and/or features that allow a person to recreate his/her/both identity without switching accounts or social networks. So I should be able to remove my “best ass in the universe” label completely, and block whomever I want to block. etc. Couple that with good core web services and users will be locked in.
Interesting way of seeing things.
What can possibly replace social networking sites?
I don’t have the answer but as long as people like to share things with there friends online social networking will be there.
I just have a question for everyone about OpenID. What would motivate consumers or organizations to demand an OpenID standard? Aren’t there barriers to such an idea? What prevents a company like Google from creating and maintaining a proprietary ID standard, even more comprehensive than the current OpenID standards?
@Pete… we can call it the Tragedy of the Facebook (common) Spaces.
Just how did Zuckerberg convince everyone that your social graph (or as Andrew #28 points out, your social network) is comprised of just your direct contacts? He talks about Facebook mirroring the real world social graph, but in the real world my social network isn’t limited to my direct contacts, nor does it contain the thousands of strangers who happen to share the same city, school or employer as I do. Contact lists on Facebook may be a little less cluttered with online buddies than those on MySpace, but beyond that I don’t think Facebook is really doing much at all to mirror your real-world social network.
As people have pointed out above, contact lists are fairly portable. A true online representation of your real-world social network probably wouldn’t be though.
“A: That won’t start to happen until you can take your friends (i.e., your social graph) with you.”
Google is going to take the first step to publishing the social graph in November, to “let a thousand social networks bloom.” It’s only Orkut’s social graph at this point, but could point the way to a future that is threatening to Facebook.
Why is no one mentioning that?
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007.....ing-plans/
Led by Brad Fitzpatrick:
http://bradfitz.com/social-graph-problem/
Is there an OpenID initiative equivalent for social graphs?
good post
This is preponderous. I am working on joint partnership with Microsoft to buy the internet.
Up yours Eric Schonfield whatever
Yo Dan,
Just a suggestion for ideaCV, how about a solution option where if an idea or problem already has a viable solution, people can direct them to it.
Good looking site.
Shane
@ Brady … there seems to be a lot of talk about “social network portability”. It’s pretty interesting; is that what you meant?
Facebook is fun on a personal level, however I have yet to see a business application ( other than social media marketing ) to have any use. When I look at the number of unanswered invites, it only makes me want to login less often.
Shane,
Right on. Thanks.
BBQ this weekend, I’ll call you.
Dan Ackerman Greenberg
http://www.ackermangreenberg.com
FB solved a simple college level problem of connecting to friends on a campus. It became cool to one single market/campus, moved to like-minded markets/campuses, became cool with people who “worked” on a “campus”. The lesson learned is; focus on campuses to get big.
@4 Someone & @41 Brady:
Take a look at OAuth. It will allow for easy sharing of data between applications. There are strong indicators that hint that Google will announce use of OAuth on November 5th.
http://www.mocaedu.com/mt/archives/000324.html