By now most of you probably have heard about Google's latest assault on the social network front: Google Friend Connect. It promises every Webmaster and site designer the addition of social features to his or her website with minimal effort. No server software to install, zero configuration, and no programming required, all one has to do is to embed snippets of code provided by Google on the target webpages. Once the Google Friend Connect becomes part of your site, users of Facebook, Orkut, Google Talk and other compatible social networks can start interacting on your site engaging in various social activities.
This is indeed a great boost to small/independent site developers. It is also an exciting time to many social network observers: No one is too surprised that Google, being an uncharacteristic underdog in this realm, attempts to disrupt the marketplace with an open strategy. But considering that MySpace also announced its Data Availability, followed by the Facebook Connect revelation, the data portability movement seems finally gaining steam and heading toward realization. So what would be the implications of meta social networking?
The "Long Tail" phenomenon may become even more pronounced
Chris Anderson's The Long Tail article on Wired Magazine illustrated the power of niche communications tailored to personal tastes and interests. Ubiquitous social networking features have the potential to penetrate each and every imaginable niche markets. The "tail" would only get longer and fatter.
Social networks may gradually turn into a commodity
The long decline of the PC industry is well-documented. Over the years, the PC market has transformed from one filled with unique products to a low-margin business selling undifferentiated generics. Should the personal data on social networks become fully (or close to) fully interchangeable, it'd be very difficult to prevent the eventual commoditization.
Valuations of social network companies may start to deflate
While no one took it seriously when the MySpace's ousted founder Brad Greenspan declared the valuation of his creation to be $20 billion, YouTube was indeed sold for $1.65 billion and Rupert Murdoch also said MySpace might be worth $6 billion. The climax came when Microsoft paid $240 million for only 1.6% share of Facebook, effectively giving it a jaw-dropping $15 billion valuation. If the aforementioned commoditization of social networks starts to take place... watch out.
Fang-Yu Lin
in
tech talk, the social net
|
Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
|
Strategists & Planners
Comments (4)
It's quite amazing where all this social networking has gone, and all the avenues of POSSIBILITIES it's created!
WOW! Love your site!
Carrie Gebbie
http://NaturalDoctorMom.com
Posted on May 18, 2008 18:47
Fang,
Nice post. It is clear that data portability, as it relates to social graph and personal profile information, has the potential to change current website architecture paradigms, but I can’t say I agree with your take on these recent announcements. The truth is, none of these new services are genuine efforts to improve portability of personal data. Both the MySpace and Facebook initiatives are nothing more than an attempt to extend the reach of privately owned, closed communities for financial gain [shocking, I know]. You describe Facebook connect as a “revelation” and go on to question whether “the data portability movement seems [to be] finally gaining steam and heading toward realization.” To this, the answer is an unequivocal no. Neither Facebook Connect nor MySpace Data Availability permit third-party retention, alteration, ownership or meaningful combination of personal data.
Web developers who choose to use one of these services are treated as a layer on top of the larger social networking site. For example, if I build a community site designed to integrate with one of these services where users are encouraged to log on with an existing Facebook username and password the new user then has access to most of the data associated with that identity. The problem is that as a web developer and site owner I do not control any of the data, Facebook does. As more users join the community site I established they are really just joining Facebook. So what ultimately happens is, my hard work goes toward growing Facebook’s community along with its user data which it still wholly owns and controls and derives nearly all of its “jaw-dropping” $15bn valuation from. The same is true of MySpace data availability. As an independent developer and entrepreneur why should I help the rich get richer while selling myself short?
As for Google, their foray into the space is, while slightly less disingenuous, equally unlikely to help the open data portability movement. Google doesn’t have any of the valuable profile and social graph data that Facebook and MySpace. Google’s Friend Connect is positioned as a repository where user data can be stored and accessed by independent developers who want to build sites with social features. The problem is – it’s an empty repository – the only sites that have the kind of data in the volume needed are, you guessed it, Facebook and MySpace and they’re not about to give up control anytime soon. Facebook has already announced that they would not integrate with Friend Connect and why should they. Again, Facebook’s value is derived the data contained on their site, so why share?
Posted on May 20, 2008 17:09
Excellent points Lavebug. I agreed that obstacles are still plenty on road to true data portability. Guess I'm just more optimistic about the long-term prospect of such an ideal. Much like the case of AOL, the garden walls around social networks might one day crumple.
Posted on May 21, 2008 08:06
Sorry for the typos. It's "Lovebug" not "Lavebug," and "crumble" not "crumple." I shouldn't have skipped my breakfast...
Posted on May 21, 2008 08:16