Today I spent the day at the "Graphing Social Patterns" conference in San Jose. The conference has a fancy name, but truth be told the event is centered around Facebook and Facebook applications.Background: For those of you who don't know, Facebook is a social networking site like MySpace or Friendster. Facebook announced a very powerful program four months ago to allow 3rd party developers to create applications inside of Facebook. These applications let you do things like play poker or share photos. On a business level this developer program allows Facebook to:1. get free developer labor 2. generates tools for their platform and users3. get free research into which features their users wantsIn order to get these developers on board there has to be some payback. To date payback comes in the form of climbing the rankings of the most installed applications, and maybe some promotion for your brand. No one is really making money off Faceback applications with the possible exception of a cottage industry in selling--wait for it--Facebook application installs. That's right, the people with the most applications installed are selling application installs to the have nots. Additionally, Facebook doesn't give developers the ability to pull down the user information associated with their users. So, if you get 1M users for your chess game you don't really "own" those users--Facebook does. This is a big point of contention obviously. Facebook says they are going to continue to evolve the platform and open it up as much as users want. They say give them time it's only been four months and their concerned about opening it wide because they want to protect users. When I hear "protect users" in these open standards discussions I immediately think about AOL's instant messenger client which never opened up and the Apple iPhone. Both of those companies say they are protecting users by keeping their platforms closed, and that is true to a point. Apple's products work better in terms of stability because they are closed, and spam issues are somewhat minimized by AOL not opening up their instant messenger AIM. However, the truth is that folks who are in the lead don't open up. Why should they? It's typically a HORRIBLE business decision to open up too much when you're winning. Opening up creates competition, it educates your competitors on how your business works, and it allows folks to easily switch. "Switching cost" in terms of AIM comes in the form that if you move to Yahoo IM or Skype you have to get all your friends to move over. That's why over a decade later AIM is still a powerhouse. So, the question for application developers is should they trust Facebook to open up their platform? It's important to note that at no point today did Facebook say they would open up--they simply said they are going to evolve the platform, that it's early, and that they will do what the users want. Are those statements a major red flag? Feels like it. If someone wants to open up wouldn't they just say "our intention is to open up slowly over time." Maybe they would say "we're going to get there, we just have to put safeguards in place." However, Facebook didn't say anything close to that today. This again, reminds me of AOL which when faced with the request to support Jabber, the open source standard for IM, kept saying they would look into it. However, they are still a closed system. Here's the bottom line: Facebook will open up as much as they need to in order to win. The reason Facebook opened up their platform to being with was to compete with MySpace, which had blocked people from developing on their platform (and running ads for it). If Facebook finds that they can make a "half open" system and get to where they need, well, they will probably do that. If MySpace opens up--as folks expect them to--and catches up with Facebooks Application development program? Well, Facebook will probably open up even more. In other words, this is a business decision not an emotional one for Facebook. As it should be. If Facebook were to be 100% open a competitor could come along and suck out all the value they've created. It would be really dangerous for Facebook to do this, and irresponsible with regard to their contract with investors. If Facebook becomes a public company you can be sure that they will make there decision on how open to be based on one test: what's in the best interest of their shareholders. In fact, they have a legal obligation to do so. Now, sometimes the interests of users and business are aligned, but not always. In fact, we all know that business nirvana is a monopoly -1 (i.e. a monopoly that doesn't look like one).Microsoft has had a "monopoly -1" for decades. As a result they were able to crush Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect and replace those "open platform" applications with their own. Apple was going to change everything and release us from oppression (remember the 1984 commercial?), but they went on to lock down the iPhone to the level of absurdity (i.e. bricking people's iPhone).So, should you trust Facebook with your business? Should build your entire business inside of Facebook--or even around Facebook?Answer: You should trust no one with your business success. You should build your business around the most open platform in the world: the open Internet. Does this mean Facebook is evil? No, not at all. Facebook has opened up 100x more than MySpace and Friendster, so in truth they are the leading example of openness right now. It does mean, however, that anyone who builds their entire business on top of a closed or semi-closed system is a fool. Leveraging Facebook to get users for your website? Great! Use Facebook to market you website? Sure, go for it!If you look at history the companies that built on closed--or semi open--platforms have gotten their asses kicked. Build for the open web first, and use these systems as icing on your cake.Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Since the "official" Web 3.0 definition was given down from the mountain--and accepted by 100% of the voting public--we've seen a bunch of Web 3.0 companies emerge. The latest is Veropedia which is using experts--aka "gifted people"--to verify the information in Wikipedia articles. It's a great idea, and we'll be watching it from the "official Web 3.0" organizing committee here at the InterWeb Verified Authority Counsel. If it works we'll be certifying them Web 3.0 compliant. ;-)Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
When we have a match for a person's need in the Mahalo database it's pure magic... we're only four months into Mahalo's alpha/beta and we're getting stories like this every day:So I asked Maholo for hotels in Paris and got this page: easy to use, straight-forward with a reasonable number of choices. In the "Moderate Hotels" category I found one that was in the right location: the Hotel Langlois - it looks nice, has a great rating on TripAdvisor. It even got free Wifi! I booked my room and was all set in less than 10 minutes. Wow!!Not sure how well Maholo works for other things. The idea of human powered search seems compelling, but keeping up with the Web is quite a task and I am not sure if humans are really up to it. Anyway, in this case Mahalo worked definitely as advertised. So, mahalo for the help, Mahalo! ;-)So, the only issue for our business is really how wide we can go (deep isn't an issue obviously since 99% of folks don't need more than 10-20 good links and our pages have 40-50 good links on average). Getting wide is our big challenge... and we're figuring it out every day. Have you got a Mahalo match story? Let me know and let us know how we can do more to save you time.Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Blade Runner: The Final Cut was STUNNING last night. I've seen Blade Runner dozens of times on DVD/VHS, but nothing prepared me for the greatness that was The Final Cut. The film looks like it was made in 2007. The images were so stunning that it would seriously win an Oscar for best effects in 2008. The detail level of the images in the background was so great that I found myself drifting off of the characters and into the the details of the buildings, cars, and alleyways. If you only see one film this year go see Blade Runner on a digital projector.... right now it's only playing in LA and NYC, however to my friends in San Francisco I can tell you it is EASILY worth making the trip to the Landmark Theater (respek to Cubes for building this place) in Los Angeles where they are showing it ona SICK 4k projector. The guy who produced Blade Runner was there with an original jacket, as was the producer. Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
The team at Mahalo is going to see Blade Runner: The Final Cut tonight. Blade Runner is one of my five favorite films of all time. I'm soooo excited! Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
From a recent interview... How do you see technological advances changing the workplace in the coming years?I don't know. That's the kind of question I think one only embarrasses oneself by trying to answer. But I know that the next problem we need to solve is, we have given people virtually unlimited access to data, to information; the next question is, can we give them better tools for making sense of that information?Google in a sense is a symbol of the solution to an old problem. We don't need more Googles; what we need is a way to prioritize and analyze and make sense of the information we have at our fingertips. And maybe those kinds of solutions aren't technological at all. I'm quite prepared for the possibility that the next revolution is not going to come from a machine; it's going to come from creating a more thoughtful work force and giving people the opportunity to be thoughtful.Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
I stayed out of the debate over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia last week since, as anyone who reads this blog knows, I don't like to mix it up with folks. I like to state my humble beliefs, meditate on the feedback I'm given, and use it to grow as a human being. Politics? I find it a wasted, shallow effort--debate class for adults. I'd rather try and change the world on a very small scale than talk about changing it on a big scale. However, that's just me... I'm from the "every grain of sand" school. Anyway, back to Mahmoud. When you give a person a lot of room to express themselves they typically do. In Mahmoud's case his disdain for homosexuals came out in statements that were so incongruous with basic human thinking--let along that of a world leader--that everyone was aware of the creature's true nature. There was nothing to debate.Saturday Night Live brilliantly pointed out what was clear in an instant: Mahmoud is really a closeted homosexual suffering under the tyranny of the regime he serves (not unlike our own Senator Larry Craig). [ Both men I'm sure claim their innocent. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt honey. ]In the Saturday Night Live skit "Iran So Far"--a skit that will be shown in history class 50 or 100 years from now--they show Mahmoud how happy his life could be if he just accepted who he was. The final lines of the song read:I know you say there's no gays in Iranbut you're in New York now babyit's time to stop hiding,and start livingSay what you will about the state of democracy in our country, what with wiretaps and secret prisons, but at least we have the ability to deftly take apart despots while dressing them in S&M gear and sultry evening wear. Now if only an SNL skit could get us off fossil fuel. Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Oh... feature alert! The tech team made the autocomplete over at Mahalo super fast and starting from the first character. You obviously have to optimize these things and refine them. So, feels like a small thing but it's sort of big for users. It's super important for us to have this feature since we need to show off all the great content we have (since we don't have the long part of the tail!). Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
I'd like to start out by thanking everyone who responded to the official definition of Web 3.0 for their participation. I'd also like to thank TechMeme for being the easiest linkbaiting tool in the history of Web 2.0 (can it really be this easy?). However, I must remind folks that as we build out the infrastructure semantic social graph that people must adhere to the new standards that we've put in place. Also, please don't call them "rules" as they are semantic-based, not rule based.1. A number of the responses to the post were clearly unauthorized. All responses to blog posts originating off of your blog in Web 3.0--including comments--must require a token pre-approving them by both parties. The "double-opt in rebuttal technology" (aka dobt) that I've patented is now build into Wordpress so there really isn't an excuse to not get your pre-approved token before commenting. Also, we have an open source ping server (mayIinterjectOMATIC.org) that is being setup now. 2. A number of the responses and blog posts we're not cleared through the central Flameoff data cleanser. Filters showed that four comments were at 18% hostility or greater toward either the subject of this post or the topic in general. Two of the comments had remarkably high self-loathing percentages of 34% as well. The Flameoff data cleansing standard was set to tone down the volume level and increase intelligent conversation--remember it's for your benefit. We wouldn't insist you use it if it wouldn't make you a better person. On average the thread was 8% more charged (i.e. hostile) than the national average, if you exclude the outliers of a whopping 89% hostility rating in the Playstation vs. XBOX threads at digg and the 0% hostility rating on the Wikipedia mailing list "no it's my fault for not anticipating your not understanding what I could have said clearer. I'm so sorry LOL!" thread. Now that we've cleared up the rules... I mean semantic social graphing decision tree... of web 3.0 let's continue the decision in earnest and with our Flameoff filters on and opt-in rebuttal tokens passed. Comments are on (how could they not be?).Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
