It’s been about two weeks since the entire blog community decided Facebook was the greatest web entity since Google. Don’t get me wrong, I use Facebook on a daily basis, along with Gmail, Netvibes (my RSS reader), and ESPN. However, my problem with this recent infatuation with Facebook because of its new platform is that it misses the whole point of why Facebook is so great. I feel like Facebook is this girl I’ve been dating for all the right reasons (intelligence, personality, good looks), but then everyone else is starting to notice her because she decided to wear makeup, a push-up bra, maybe some net stockings and hooker boots.

The communication between friends, the sharing of memories through photos, and other social features made Facebook what it is today. I place a ton of value in keeping in touch with friends, core and ancillary, which is why I don’t think Facebook is going to go away anytime soon. These applications/widgets on the Facebook platform certainly make the whole experience more enjoyable, but it doesn’t mean I can’t live without it. Innovations like the News Feed, in conjunction with killer apps like Photo and Events, make it what it is. It’s also the little things:

- Clicking on my friend Emma’s photos gives you the link of ‘Photos of You and Emma’.
- Clicking on Emma’s profile shows our mutual friends
- A feed of recently tagged friends
- Setting your relationship status with another person on Facebook, thus linking them.

I could go on and on, but the point is, Facebook’s growth is attributable to them completely nailing the basics from functionality, ease of use and aesthetics, to the granular privacy settings. The Platform is a very nice addition and potentially an extremely important one - but it would be nothing without the strong foundation already in place. And a lot of the tech bloggers who have recently joined the bandwagon fail to mention this.

Granted it’s only been a few months since the platform launch, so hopefully we will see more useful apps, but so far I’ve found myself rarely using these applications on a regular basis. I do, however, like to look at other people’s pictures and stalk them. That will never get old.

Facebook is the Next ______

I can’t really see Facebook becoming the next Microsoft. Nor can I see it becoming the next Google. Windows was essential to using a computer and Google was essential to finding information and accessing the Internet. Both those companies fulfill essential needs for people. Facebook doesn’t really fulfill a need yet. But who cares? It is still and will always be a great service for high school students and college students. These people will always continue to use it to keep in touch with their friends as they grow older, but how much value will they get out of it once they grow older and start a family. Will it continue to be a staple in my life? I’m not sure. Hopefully, there’s continued innovation on Facebook for me to keep on using it. As long as Facebook is not acquired, we’ll continue to see new features roll out.

The Parakey acquisition does start to convince me that they are for real and not just pumping valuation for an exit that makes turning down Yahoo’s $1.6bn seem like a smart move. On that we can just wait and see. My major scepticism is an old media issue - social media is a lousy way to generate business versus search - no database of intentions and users too busy connecting with each other to read the ads. I have seen this viewed as old media thinking, but revenue has to come from somewhere - subscrīptions or ads and I cannot believe it is going to be subscrīptions

I also think that social media may have reverse economy of scale – the more join the less useful/cool it becomes for the original members and audiences bifurcate. Particularly if there is too much drive to monetize and marketers get a chance to push their products (in ultra cool, student friendly, heavily embedded and disguised ways of course) and then the smart people leave the “mall” for cooler places to hangout. My sense is that The Valley wants a big new success story to follow Google as well as a counterweight to Google. So there is a lot of motivation to have an open API where small start-ups can make money - perhaps some kind of eBay economy will emerge. However, when Microsoft was on the rise we saw lots of Microsoft killers get a lot of support and get nowhere. Nobody wants dominance by one player, whether Microsoft or Google. If Facebook remains closed their support from developers/start-ups will fade once the hype phase recedes. If they really open up then it could be a big deal.

I have seen one market where closed won out against open despite all the players rooting for open. That was when Bloomberg refused to distribute their data as digital data feeds for other platforms to slice and dice. Bloomberg’s demise was constantly predicted. They won by delivering a better service that really met the needs of traders. It was a classic focus, focus, focus story. If Facebook was focussed on one market – say college students - I could see them having that focus and just being the best. But being the best and most focused for everybody on the planet

Is There Real Stickiness?

I’m seeing people leave MySpace and LinkedIn and others to come to Facebook - they are abandoning their existing investments in terms of friend networks on those social networks and migrating to Facbook. Wonderful for Facebook for now, but what does Facebook do differently that prevents the same thing from happening to them when the next hot site rolls around? All that said, I love Facebook for what it is - a phenomenal social networking site that is making a lot of great moves to capture excitement. It also has some great applicability in the enterprise space given the exclusivity of work networks.

You see articles surfacing about the cut-rate pricing on Facebook ads because the click-through rates are horrendously bad. I know of others who ran campaigns over the past couple of years who saw the same thing. Facebook today is a poor advertising destination, regardless of how good in theory it should be. Given that this is their entire revenue model, that is a very serious problem. Without that solid revenue model they are a classic Web 1.0 “eyeballs are worth something!” company.

What made the Microsoft Windows platform so successful was the strength of its 3rd party ISV ecosystem, and how the Windows platform and economics enabled so many ISVs to be financially successful over the long run. I don’t see that today on Facebook - how exactly are ISVs monetizing all those Facebook widgets? Perhaps by driving people offsite back to the source Web sites? Ads in the widgets? Whatever could happen, it’s not happening much now.

Facebook’s Value is in its Openness (or Not)

When I first used Facebook in college the real value was in the closed community. It encouraged people who never had any intention to join a social network to join one because we all trusted the people in our network/college. It was a truly ingenius move. Although it recently opened up its network - probably when it realized it already saturated all of the college campuses - it’s still closed to people not on the network. That was a problem on MySpace. Pages on Facebook aren’t indexed by Google and only people in your trusted closed community can see your profile. Even the platform isn’t really open; developers can’t port their Facebook applications over to any other platform or system. I have been wondering how long it would take before the elephant in the room was exposed. How many companies are going to devote time and resources to building applications for a silo that use proprietary code that cannot be reused outside of the silo and that can only have a limited amount of possible users? It is not surprising that there are rumors that Microsoft wants to buy them. I also find it interesting that Marc Andreessen would come out in anyway to support a closed silo that attempts to create its own version of the Internet. Currently most Social Networking sites create closed silos of user information and content that cannot be easily shared, reused, or redistributed outside of the network. Facebook is a closed Silo. Myspace is a closed Silo. A Facebook member cannot export their Profile to Myspace. A Myspace member cannot export their profile to Facebook. This is not because their is no technical way to export member profiles; its because both companies want to lock users into the Myspace and Facebook silos.

The Facebook “Open” platform is not only a gimmick it is also an Orwellian attempt to hi-jack and redefine the term “Open.” I think that many “Open” source proponents would agree that “Open,” when it refers to software applications at the very least, means interoperability. Facebook is not interoperable. Myspace is not interoperable. From today onwards, it is my hope that those reporting on and covering Facebook will no longer use the term “Open” to describe the Facebook platform. The data and content that members own cannot be easily exported out, or used with many other existing internet applications. The flow of data and information is one way. The Open platform is in fact open for developers, but closed to the rest of the Internet. A one way vacuum of application development that can never expand to any users base other than Facebook. FaceBook is a “Closed” platform much the way that Microsoft is a closed Platform. Develop for Microsoft and your application will be dependent on Microsoft technology and will not easily port to any other platfrom. Develop for Facebook and your application will not work on any other platform. By developing applications for either you have limited the possible amount of networks that can distribute and use your application.

AOL at one time was also the darling of the internet. A big fat closed platform that attempted to lock in users. While AOL had quite a run, it was only a matter of time before users understood that AOL was not the Internet. That there were millions, and millions of other networks to participate in. Once the hole of reality was opened and members realized that they were free to go beyond the AOL wall, the flow of members leaving the silo could not be stopped.

From here on forth, I have decided to become an active participant on this thing called the Internet. The Internet is wonderful - gives me instant access to so many things (news, information, friends, women). However, I feel like it is time to enlighten the Internet with my wisdom and knowledge. Some of you might be thinking if the Internet was a person its IQ probably went down 5 points. You’re probably right.

The History of Alcohol

The first discovery of alcohol predates the written language. In fact, I think alcohol goes back to prehistory times when the Neanderthals were fighting for their lives against the wild and most died sometime around high school age. The men who discovered alcohol were the ones who were able to pass down their genes the best and became our fathers. Alcohol wasn’t a very easy discovery since it was basically rotten fruits and tasted pretty bad, but the men who found the true secret of alcohol were able to breed the best and the most? Why? Because they realized it made women horny. It was the absolute best way to get women to breed with them without having to expend too much energy and effort on one woman. In fact, they most likely gave their counterpart women some wine, played some Marvin Gaye, and got it on (a lot). Evolution eventually took its course and those that had the knowledge to make wine passed it down to their many off-springs.

If you don’t believe me ask the Geico Caveman.

I have another opinion on wine, but that will be for another time.