Kottke Is Wrong...Sorta
Oh goodness, where to even begin here. I started off with reading a post on Read/Write Web about how open Facebook really is. This started off by saying that despite their claims, Facebook really is not as open as they claim. MacManus says that he found that most people agree Facebook is not an open platform in the true sense. I only half agree with this one. When I hear Facebook say that they are an “open” platform, I interpret that as meaning that they are a welcoming platform. They allow developers write applications for, and integrate with, their platform. Rather than an iPhone, they are a desktop computer, for instance. By the same token that Windows, OSX and Linux are not “open” in that just writing something for one does not make it work on all, Facebook is not “open” either. What is important here, though, is that Facebook is the only social network service that has a large user base, and welcomes outside development. So while it could be accurate to say that Facebook is not open, I don’t see this as being as bad as it might sound. Also, I don’t think that Facebook is in error by calling themselves open, as I think they are referring to their welcoming developers.
Next, the article goes on to examine a point made by Jason Kottke that Facebook is the new AOL. Again, I’m not sure if I fully agree here. I think that they share similarities, in that they are something of a walled garden. The difference, I believe, is that Facebook’s “wall” is permeable. Many applications that have been created are tie-ins from other outside sources. For instance, with an application for Flickr, users can pull in outside data, and integrate it with their Facebook profile. This works both ways. There are other apps that take things you do in Facebook, and then tie those into their own external sites. This flow of information is far from a true walled garden. Kottke goes on to say that part of what makes Facebook so closed is that the data on it is completely private, and not even indexed by search sites. I have to wonder just what Kottke is smoking. Who would want their profile pages indexed? This is one of my annoyances with MySpace. I don’t want my Facebook information available on Google. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of people agree with me on this one. Jason seems to find fault with the fact that interaction happens in private. That is part of the appeal of Facebook, not a hindrance. This is also where it does tie back to AOL, though. The difference is in the flow of information via the apps that are created; the similarity is in user information. To me, this is a pretty nice blend.
MacManus concludes that Facebook is a good development platform, but is not an open form. He goes on to answer the question of how this matters by pointing out that closed platforms don't end well, pointing out AOL and Microsoft. On AOL, I believe that Facebook demonstrates enough of a difference to have a much better chance at success. Remember, AOL failed for multiple reasons, not just because they were a walled garden. Added to this that Facebook isn't a true walled garden, I don't think foreshadowing AOL's fate is a fair comparison. As for Microsoft, aren't all operating systems inherently closed platforms based on the standards people are applying to Facebook? By that account, I think Microsoft is doing alright for themselves while still being a closed system.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off the mark on this one?
Next, the article goes on to examine a point made by Jason Kottke that Facebook is the new AOL. Again, I’m not sure if I fully agree here. I think that they share similarities, in that they are something of a walled garden. The difference, I believe, is that Facebook’s “wall” is permeable. Many applications that have been created are tie-ins from other outside sources. For instance, with an application for Flickr, users can pull in outside data, and integrate it with their Facebook profile. This works both ways. There are other apps that take things you do in Facebook, and then tie those into their own external sites. This flow of information is far from a true walled garden. Kottke goes on to say that part of what makes Facebook so closed is that the data on it is completely private, and not even indexed by search sites. I have to wonder just what Kottke is smoking. Who would want their profile pages indexed? This is one of my annoyances with MySpace. I don’t want my Facebook information available on Google. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of people agree with me on this one. Jason seems to find fault with the fact that interaction happens in private. That is part of the appeal of Facebook, not a hindrance. This is also where it does tie back to AOL, though. The difference is in the flow of information via the apps that are created; the similarity is in user information. To me, this is a pretty nice blend.
MacManus concludes that Facebook is a good development platform, but is not an open form. He goes on to answer the question of how this matters by pointing out that closed platforms don't end well, pointing out AOL and Microsoft. On AOL, I believe that Facebook demonstrates enough of a difference to have a much better chance at success. Remember, AOL failed for multiple reasons, not just because they were a walled garden. Added to this that Facebook isn't a true walled garden, I don't think foreshadowing AOL's fate is a fair comparison. As for Microsoft, aren't all operating systems inherently closed platforms based on the standards people are applying to Facebook? By that account, I think Microsoft is doing alright for themselves while still being a closed system.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off the mark on this one?
Labels: Facebook
posted by Jeremy at
7:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home