Comments on: Now We’re a Social Network http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/ Driving Innovation Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:41:37 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Strange Things are Afoot at the Circle K | Oracle http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-9062 Strange Things are Afoot at the Circle K | Oracle Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:41:06 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-9062 [...] and I decided to make a couple tweaks to make the blog load faster. I removed Google Friend Connect, which didn’t seem to do much beyond create a static network with some [...] [...] and I decided to make a couple tweaks to make the blog load faster. I removed Google Friend Connect, which didn’t seem to do much beyond create a static network with some [...]

]]> By: Jake http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5685 Jake Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:00:56 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5685 My bad. OS does collect activity as part of its spec, so it's a matter of how you surface that activity.<br><br>I was confusing OS with GFC, and actually GFC surfaces activity. It's pretty hard to find, but it's there somewhere. GFC packs a lot of functionality into tiny gadgets. I'm finding it's a discovery process to get that information. My bad. OS does collect activity as part of its spec, so it's a matter of how you surface that activity.

I was confusing OS with GFC, and actually GFC surfaces activity. It's pretty hard to find, but it's there somewhere. GFC packs a lot of functionality into tiny gadgets. I'm finding it's a discovery process to get that information.

]]> By: innov8ion http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5683 innov8ion Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:27:40 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5683 Thanks for pointing out that OS lacks a news feed. It's amazing that this seems to be one of the most useful features of a social network and yet OS still lacks it. <br><br>As far as gadgets and advertising, I find it interesting that Yahoo won't use them in "Small view" aka a gadget. I wonder why... <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yap/guide/anatomy-small-view.html" rel="nofollow">http://developer.yahoo.com/yap/guide/anatomy-sm...</a> Thanks for pointing out that OS lacks a news feed. It's amazing that this seems to be one of the most useful features of a social network and yet OS still lacks it.

As far as gadgets and advertising, I find it interesting that Yahoo won't use them in “Small view” aka a gadget. I wonder why… http://developer.yahoo.com/yap/guide/anatomy-sm...

]]> By: Jake http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5670 Jake Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:31:03 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5670 Did you forget Live Search integration with FB? MSFT accounts for the lion's share of FB's revenue, so I think they hold more sway than their ownership percentage dictates.<br><br>I agree that it's only a matter of time before FB is either acquired by MSFT or MSFT manages to buy a controlling interest.<br><br>OS is still very new, version 0.8, and it does lack big-time features like a News Feed. Advertising seems pretty straightforward; Google will channel Ad Words, which seems to work pretty well for them. I disagree that gadgets won't be used to advertise. I think that adds value for web site owners by offering advertisers more targeted ads through mining social data.<br><br>I think the OS News Feed will come, but it'll be built by Google I think. They have the most experience and the overall vision. I want one too. Did you forget Live Search integration with FB? MSFT accounts for the lion's share of FB's revenue, so I think they hold more sway than their ownership percentage dictates.

I agree that it's only a matter of time before FB is either acquired by MSFT or MSFT manages to buy a controlling interest.

OS is still very new, version 0.8, and it does lack big-time features like a News Feed. Advertising seems pretty straightforward; Google will channel Ad Words, which seems to work pretty well for them. I disagree that gadgets won't be used to advertise. I think that adds value for web site owners by offering advertisers more targeted ads through mining social data.

I think the OS News Feed will come, but it'll be built by Google I think. They have the most experience and the overall vision. I want one too.

]]> By: innov8ion http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5668 innov8ion Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:54:24 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5668 1. MSFT only owns 1.6% of Facebook. So far, they've only won the competition to advertise on Facebook. The following is what I see happening and I'd like to hear your opinion. Facebook only does so much and lacks many useful applications that could integrate with it. Pretty obviously, they will continue to integrate MSFT properties over time. Ray Ozzie and Zuckerberg are friends. I can imagine they will form strategic architectures together. After they are overly entwined, MSFT will buy them out. At that point, who else would want to? ;) The thing is -- I don't like any MSFT web 2.0 applications and I'm not sure I see that changing anytime soon. <br>2. I think this boils down to how monetization works in OpenSocial world. I think it's twofold -- advertising within the container and harnessing applications and app gadgets (portability/reach) to increase marketing intelligence to improve the value of advertising. Gadgets won't be used to advertise...<br><br>But also, where is the OpenSocial news feed? I want one place to see my social news feed. One place to see my friends. Sure, I will visit specialized OpenSocial containers and see a subset there.... But I want one place to see everything. And this points to your point #4... In this consortium, how does one create one prime integration point? Perhaps the OpenSocial foundation builds that instead of Google? 1. MSFT only owns 1.6% of Facebook. So far, they've only won the competition to advertise on Facebook. The following is what I see happening and I'd like to hear your opinion. Facebook only does so much and lacks many useful applications that could integrate with it. Pretty obviously, they will continue to integrate MSFT properties over time. Ray Ozzie and Zuckerberg are friends. I can imagine they will form strategic architectures together. After they are overly entwined, MSFT will buy them out. At that point, who else would want to? ;) The thing is — I don't like any MSFT web 2.0 applications and I'm not sure I see that changing anytime soon.
2. I think this boils down to how monetization works in OpenSocial world. I think it's twofold — advertising within the container and harnessing applications and app gadgets (portability/reach) to increase marketing intelligence to improve the value of advertising. Gadgets won't be used to advertise…

But also, where is the OpenSocial news feed? I want one place to see my social news feed. One place to see my friends. Sure, I will visit specialized OpenSocial containers and see a subset there…. But I want one place to see everything. And this points to your point #4… In this consortium, how does one create one prime integration point? Perhaps the OpenSocial foundation builds that instead of Google?

]]> By: Jake http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5663 Jake Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:32:43 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5663 Exactly why they won't creat a social network as David is proposing.<br><br>Sure, I have an orkut profile, and it's also extremely popular in Brazil. Orkut was one of the first OpenSocial containers launched, and it grew out of a Googlers 20% time project. <br><br>I know orkut :)<br><br>The fact remains that it's not going to challenge Facebook (or MySpace for that matter), so rather than pump it up or go a new route, Google has chosen a different approach. Exactly why they won't creat a social network as David is proposing.

Sure, I have an orkut profile, and it's also extremely popular in Brazil. Orkut was one of the first OpenSocial containers launched, and it grew out of a Googlers 20% time project.

I know orkut :)

The fact remains that it's not going to challenge Facebook (or MySpace for that matter), so rather than pump it up or go a new route, Google has chosen a different approach.

]]> By: Sean http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5661 Sean Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:12:49 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5661 Jake, about point #2: Google already has a social network. It's called Orkut and it's very popular in India. Jake, about point #2: Google already has a social network. It's called Orkut and it's very popular in India.

]]> By: Jake http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5659 Jake Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:56:25 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5659 A few notes:<br>1) Microsoft has a social network. It's Facebook, make no mistake there.<br>2) Google won't create a social network. It's a zero sum game at this point. They will socialize everything though and use gadgets as integration points. See my most recent post on GMail :)<br>3) MySpace isn't dead just yet. They have done the right thing by jumping on the open train, just like Yahoo did. Where that train goes is the big TBD. I'm surprised by the resiliency of MySpace.<br>4) Your point about network segmentation is the big question. All the Friend Connect sites should be shared to merge the social graph.<br><br>This is an interesting time. We get to watch the identity/data landgrab. A few notes:
1) Microsoft has a social network. It's Facebook, make no mistake there.
2) Google won't create a social network. It's a zero sum game at this point. They will socialize everything though and use gadgets as integration points. See my most recent post on GMail :)
3) MySpace isn't dead just yet. They have done the right thing by jumping on the open train, just like Yahoo did. Where that train goes is the big TBD. I'm surprised by the resiliency of MySpace.
4) Your point about network segmentation is the big question. All the Friend Connect sites should be shared to merge the social graph.

This is an interesting time. We get to watch the identity/data landgrab.

]]> By: innov8ion http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5658 innov8ion Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:30:02 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5658 This is a step in the right direction fo sho. What I don't like is that social graphs in the OpenSocial platform now seem to be segmented in two by Friend Connect and Data Availability (now MySpaceID?) I assume this has something to do with control or monetization. At a minimum, I think the social graph should be common between Friend Connect and MySpaceID. If they want to make each implementation more robust, then build upon that. But this segmentation really weakens the platform IMHO. <br><br>I want to only manage one network of friends if possible. Additionally, I'd also like to categorize my friends into groups and/or groups of groups. This could be used to set permissions for our OpenSocial information. <br><br>MySpace is dead. The brand is stained as everyone knows its geared toward toward kids and hormone-filled zombies. They don't seem to have a good understanding of how to appeal to the broader market. Facebook does. Google can. Yahoo is aligning themselves with a loser by joining MySpaceID. Perhaps they feel they have to because Yahoo (along with MSFT) has failed in creating a social network. <br><br>Google needs to create a new social network that unifies iGoogle, Google Apps, and it's other Google properties (picasa, maps, etc...) I assume they're working on that now because iGoogle is looking better every day. It needs to be modeled after Facebook to have mass appeal. This is true because OpenSocial will fail if MySpace is the most successful example of a consumer OpenSocial social network.<br><br>Yahoo should do something similar... Yahoo has played around with social networks but has done as crappy a job as Microsoft. They need to figure it out because their web 2.0 properties are fantastic and they've got a great architecture in YOS. It'd be a shame for them to not exploit it.<br><br>Why doesn't Oracle make a kickass OpenSocial business container that ties in its enterprise software properties? It'll be the next-generation, federated, social SaaS portal. There's a lot of value in this, methinks.<br><br>Facebook is the new Microsoft. Yuk.<br><br>Brain dump over. This is a step in the right direction fo sho. What I don't like is that social graphs in the OpenSocial platform now seem to be segmented in two by Friend Connect and Data Availability (now MySpaceID?) I assume this has something to do with control or monetization. At a minimum, I think the social graph should be common between Friend Connect and MySpaceID. If they want to make each implementation more robust, then build upon that. But this segmentation really weakens the platform IMHO.

I want to only manage one network of friends if possible. Additionally, I'd also like to categorize my friends into groups and/or groups of groups. This could be used to set permissions for our OpenSocial information.

MySpace is dead. The brand is stained as everyone knows its geared toward toward kids and hormone-filled zombies. They don't seem to have a good understanding of how to appeal to the broader market. Facebook does. Google can. Yahoo is aligning themselves with a loser by joining MySpaceID. Perhaps they feel they have to because Yahoo (along with MSFT) has failed in creating a social network.

Google needs to create a new social network that unifies iGoogle, Google Apps, and it's other Google properties (picasa, maps, etc…) I assume they're working on that now because iGoogle is looking better every day. It needs to be modeled after Facebook to have mass appeal. This is true because OpenSocial will fail if MySpace is the most successful example of a consumer OpenSocial social network.

Yahoo should do something similar… Yahoo has played around with social networks but has done as crappy a job as Microsoft. They need to figure it out because their web 2.0 properties are fantastic and they've got a great architecture in YOS. It'd be a shame for them to not exploit it.

Why doesn't Oracle make a kickass OpenSocial business container that ties in its enterprise software properties? It'll be the next-generation, federated, social SaaS portal. There's a lot of value in this, methinks.

Facebook is the new Microsoft. Yuk.

Brain dump over.

]]> By: Jake http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5597 Jake Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:31:18 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5597 Kudos on succeeding at snark without effort :) You're right about this blog though; interactions IRL have made it more tight-knit than most blogs I suspect.<br><br>So far, I'm pretty impressed with GFC, especially how easy it is. I found a few new sites by looking at member profiles and other sites people have joined. <br><br>Even aside from the open web issues I have with FB Connect, I just don't see it as useful to me, but it's definitely going to be successful. I suppose all it takes is one big content site, e.g. NYT or WSJ. Kudos on succeeding at snark without effort :) You're right about this blog though; interactions IRL have made it more tight-knit than most blogs I suspect.

So far, I'm pretty impressed with GFC, especially how easy it is. I found a few new sites by looking at member profiles and other sites people have joined.

Even aside from the open web issues I have with FB Connect, I just don't see it as useful to me, but it's definitely going to be successful. I suppose all it takes is one big content site, e.g. NYT or WSJ.

]]> By: Dan Norris http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5596 Dan Norris Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:10:00 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5596 For the record, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I honestly believe this site had more to offer than just a blog for a long time. While I know you aren't always happy with the number of comments you draw from the world, you get more than most of the tech blogs I read and the conversations often volley back and forth quite a while. To me, that's a lot more than just a blog, but it isn't really a forum, not really a social network...so I was struggling to place it. Given my habits, I can understand your interpretation of my written words to be of a "smarty pants" vein--I deserve it :). <br><br>Anyway, I applaud the 'lab's willingness to try something new without knowing exactly whether it will evoke the desired response...or sometimes if it will work at all. Keep it up! For the record, I wasn't trying to be snarky. I honestly believe this site had more to offer than just a blog for a long time. While I know you aren't always happy with the number of comments you draw from the world, you get more than most of the tech blogs I read and the conversations often volley back and forth quite a while. To me, that's a lot more than just a blog, but it isn't really a forum, not really a social network…so I was struggling to place it. Given my habits, I can understand your interpretation of my written words to be of a “smarty pants” vein–I deserve it :) .

Anyway, I applaud the 'lab's willingness to try something new without knowing exactly whether it will evoke the desired response…or sometimes if it will work at all. Keep it up!

]]> By: Jake http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5589 Jake Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:22:55 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5589 Google Friend Connect turns any site into a social network, so functionally, there's very little difference between large sites (Facebook, MySpace, Friendster) and a site using GFC. Maybe a few bells/whistles, here and there.<br><br>I suppose the big difference is size and interest. Rather than millions of people, you have a handful, all of whom are interested in that particular site. On FB, you might become a fan of another site, whereas GFC lets you join that site's network.<br><br>Both have value, choice is good. GFC was announced in the Spring (May I think) and was in beta until this week, when it went live. Anyone can join any site's network from anywhere. So you could make friends from all over the world. Google Friend Connect turns any site into a social network, so functionally, there's very little difference between large sites (Facebook, MySpace, Friendster) and a site using GFC. Maybe a few bells/whistles, here and there.

I suppose the big difference is size and interest. Rather than millions of people, you have a handful, all of whom are interested in that particular site. On FB, you might become a fan of another site, whereas GFC lets you join that site's network.

Both have value, choice is good. GFC was announced in the Spring (May I think) and was in beta until this week, when it went live. Anyone can join any site's network from anywhere. So you could make friends from all over the world.

]]> By: chernalyne http://theappslab.com/2008/12/05/now-were-a-social-network/comment-page-1/#comment-5587 chernalyne Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:46:49 +0000 http://theappslab.com/?p=1968#comment-5587 What is the difference of this into the friendster and to the other site? and what do you think is this really better than other site? when it was started? can I also make friends nationwide ? What is the difference of this into the friendster and to the other site? and what do you think is this really better than other site? when it was started? can I also make friends nationwide ?

]]>