Point Counterpoint

« A Few Random Items | Main | Where Tags and Blogmaps »

Point Counterpoint

Josh Kopelman on why companies should develop apps for Facebook instead of MySpace.

Scott Heiferman on why companies should be wary of building apps on Facebook.

And both use mid 90s companies (Prodigy and AOL) to make their points.

Comments (6) | Posted May 29, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology

Comments

Scott's slightly off on the whole proprietary language bit. FaceBook's API is as minimalist a web service as they come. Their query language is very small (and optionally wrapped in a web service); the new FBML markup language for page layout is just HTML subset with a few minor extensions. I'm not advocating that companies shouldn't be wary, but should at least do their own technical eval independent from what bloggers (and blog commentators) say.

Posted by: Charles | May 29, 2007 2:57:54 PM

I see the connection to the closed communities of Web 1.0, but it's not the same. The fact that kids are developing apps is one example of that -- they are more open and more accessible. They are also not making folks pay to play, which is another big difference. As an application developer you have to go where the audience is and given the speed to which companies have been able to put their apps on Facebook, it doesn't take huge resources to go there.

Posted by: Michael Hoffman | May 29, 2007 3:10:49 PM

Scott has too many flaws in his argument to count. AOL 'was' the Internet to many of it's users - facebook's demographic is arguably the most tech savvy of any community out there. If a user is on facebook is likel ymeans they're at a university with ubiquitous internet access, they know how to use a real web browser (something AOL users didn't) and know how to get from one web property to another (something AOL users didn't - they used "keywords"). I was a former AOL Add-on developer and have used Rainman before. The sophistication of the community aside the program in and of itself is night and day. Just to keep our 'app' on AOL we had to pay the $50k per year - Facebook's take = $0 (that might and arguably should change but for now they are certainly 'not evil'). Sorry Scott, but your analogy just doesn't hold water.

Posted by: Wayne Mulligan | May 29, 2007 5:48:53 PM

I think it's unfair to bash Scott's argument by nitpicking it, the point is:

if you choose to build anything on FB's network, "builder beware."

in that regards, he has a point.

i wrote on this when it was announced:
http://www.watchmojo.com/web/blog/?p=1594

Posted by: ashkan karbasfrooshan | May 29, 2007 9:46:51 PM

I agree with scott actually. Given the lesser of two evil (bipolar myspace vs. platform lock-in facebook) I would still pick facebook. But I would do it with the full understanding the long-term implication of my decisions.

http://hitchhiker.blogsome.com/2007/05/27/and-thus-the-widget-ecosystem-closes/

Posted by: will | May 30, 2007 3:30:40 AM

I don't understand the "builder beware," from what I can see this is an extremely good deal for everyone involved. The builder gets his/her app included in an extremely viral social network (BTW ilike has absolutely EXPLODED in FB) whereas creating a widget/app for anything else and distributing so effectively is essentially impossible. Basically, it's a chance for developers to get in the game and make a name for themselves, while providing a great service.

Like Josh says, FB gets a great R&D effort and benefits from the fact that the apps are CHOSEN by their users.

Most importantly the users get increased benefits from the apps with diversified programmers (different outlooks, ideas, applications). Offering the user a better experience is the key; Zuckerberg seems to understand this and is making significant strides in becoming the "social operating system for the internet," er...I think that's what he called it...

Posted by: Robert John Ed | May 30, 2007 9:44:42 AM

A VC

Musings of a VC in NYC