Open Facebook? Not Exactly

I think Facebook is the most interesting company in Silicon Valley right now, more interesting than Google.

That's because they are still young and innovating on a single dimension and doing it better than anyone.

All you have to is watch how they roll out new features to see that they have impeccable taste in technology and execute it beautifully.

They watch what others do and then do it better, taking advantage of the very real social network that's at the heart of Facebook.

Sure MySpace and Beebo have social nets too. But based on my observation of my kids and increasingly my own habits, Facebook is the kind of service, like Google, that you build your web around.

Of course every single web service I know of would like to tap into that network. Build widgets that run on Facebook like the ones that run on MySpace and Beebo and elsewhere.

But Facebook hasn't been keen to that model. And according to today's WSJ, Facebook is going to open in a different way.

Instead of the wild west model that exists elsewhere in the social net world, companies that want to play in Facebook's sandbox will be offered the opportunity to build services in Facebook but in a way that works for Facebook.

That's not entirely an open model and may not be what third parties would ideally like. But its better than what exists today and it's big news. We'll be watching this development closely as will our portfolio companies.

Comments

[Robert Dewey]

I like O'Reilly's concept better; build my network for me, and then let me at it. Cellular phone calls, incoming/outgoing e-mails... all of it can be used to build a huge grid of real user-to-user relationships, and all of it would be open (i.e. exporting relationships in an XML format).

If it happens, the possibilities are endless. Excellent communication, very effective spam filters, ability to seamlessly share information (i.e. schedules, airline information, for-sale listings, etc). Other services could tap into the network by pinging the "relationship database", which would then attach the content to that specific user. Not only does it promote those services (i.e. schedule information provided by Google Calendar), but it's extremely useful.

I have to think that this would be a step toward the semantic web, by putting a face and relationship structure onto content.

Facebook may be the most "open" right now, but I don't think that will last.

[Scott Rafer]

Facebook markup language is simply a web services publishing API that they are imposing on everyone else. I suspect there will be a rush to clone the Facebook markup language on the part of other networks, making it a de facto inclusion standard. That would be more than open enough for Facebook and its partners to succeed.

We're making sure that Mashery is a great reporting and management tool for understanding what calls your site is receiving from the Facebook Platform. Understanding your Facebook Platform traffic is the way to make sure you thrive in their new ecology -- and the ecologies that clone it.

[Greg Clayman]

Here's the URL for the WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117971397890009177-email.html

The open-source community does seem abuzz with interest in Facebook's open API. And Facebook has given a lot back to the open-source community in the form of huge contributions to projects like memcached and phpsh; they're good on the give and take. I have high hopes here...

I wrote yesterday about my personal Facebook odyssey: http://twofones.typepad.com/twofones/2007/05/i_heart_faceboo.html

[Jeffrey McManus]

It's arguable whether a platform that isn't open is actually a platform. I'd call it a "partner program" until and unless they open it up to anyone.

Prospective partners need to understand that it is much easier for a provider to cancel or unilaterally amend a partner program than it is to mess with an open platform. There is significant risk here as companies are discovering (see: Photobucket).

Keeping things closed is self-defeating for the prospective platform provider at any rate. Having a walled garden makes sense if you know in advance what innovations that every conceivable third party could bring to the table. The problem is, unless you have high-speed world-spanning telepathy, you can't possibly know that.

[Yong Su Kim]

It sounds like Facebook is playing the old platform game. Support standards but provide enough custom extensions and APIs so that you lock your partners into your platform.

It's not a surprise since now these Internet companies are becoming big enough to start calling the shots. Everyone will support open standards and API's when they're getting started. However, once they reach a certain size, they all seem to gravitate towards a proprietary/lock in model.

Maybe it's because the MBA's are now taking over these companies...
Now that these Internet companies are becoming dominant in their

[Andrew]

You mean "according to today's not-exactly-open WSJ"? I can't read the article. I presume it's about the new Facebook API.

[Anthony V]

Having seen how Facebook implemented some of the other "common" social networking features, I am really looking forward to this.

It will be well thought-out and truly contribute to the idea and Facebook experience.

I think this model is harder to get right but yields more significant results than does the myspace-esque widget wild west alternative.

Significant here means not immediate traffic gains, but longer-term benefits (which will later lead to traffic gains anyway).

[mark]

its just beginning to hit in england fred. could not believe that my younger brother actually called me to tell me about it.

[Rolly Rouse]

Hi Fred -

I love your notion of "innovating on a single dimension and doing it better than anyone." That's what Google did early on. And it's where most of their market value flows from today, despite all the bells and whistles post-IPO.

Google doesn't have a fully open API. They don't have to because they've built the kind of service, as you say, "that you build your web around."

Indeed, in Facebook's case the semi-open structure of their API seems a logical extension of their semi-open structure for creating user networks. They started small (with college kids) and helped people create networks that were focused, structured, and manageable.

But you could get in, even if you weren't in college, provided you were invited. That's part of how our now 16 year old daughter first got interested a couple of years ago.

Facebook is being rewarded for their focus. Whereas MySpace sold for half a billion, Facebook is still privately-held and is now rumored to be worth $3 billion to $6 billion.

I've read lots of blogs advocating that Mark Zuckerberg sell Facebook now, while the selling is good. My hope is that he doesn't sell, and that he continues to build a great independent company.

Would Google really be the innovator it continues to be today if they had sold the company in 2004 instead of going public? I don't think so.

As an entrepreneur, I hope Facebook stays independent. I hope so for our daughter's sake, as well. She and her friends live on Facebook. It's becoming more important to them than their cell phones and iPods. And that's saying a lot!

All the best -

Rolly Rouse
Co-Founder and CEO
HomePortfolio Inc.

[Cem Sertoglu]

I agree that Facebook is the most interesting company around right now. Unlike MySpace and Bebo, who consider themselves media companies, Facebook considers itself a technology company. This difference in attitude and approach distinguishes Facebook from other social networks in that everything in Facebook works very, very well. Since the whole SN world grew so rapidly, most other SNs don't work like that. They are clunky, counter-intuitive,.. not natural. Facebook feels right to the users, and I guess that's why they have imposed a stricter set of rules for those services who want to run on Facebook.

Normally, I'd think that it would add friction, but in their case, I think the rules they impose will reduce friction.

I'd trade two MySpaces for one Facebook right away...

[Charlie]

I think they're doing it the right way... carefully measured.. more and more open everyday... They really care about the quality of the experience of their users... a lot more than MySpace.