Not Sitting Tight
Facebook continues to impress, buying one of the most interesting Bay Area startups, a company called Parakey that has developed technology for persistent web apps.
Persistent web apps are certainly one of the next big things. If the technology works, the web will be like desktop software. Imagine using gmail like you can use thunderbird or outlook on your desktop. Google is developing something called Google Gears that is similar. Google describes Gears as "enabling offline web apps".
Adobe has developed a technology called AIR that also promises to provide persistence to web apps. I am not technical enough to describe how all these various technologies differ from each other. I am sure there are important differences between them.
But what's important here is that the web is going to be an operating system with direct access to your device and you'll be able to use your web apps even when you aren't connected to the web. This is going to result in a whole new wave of innovation. And that's a big deal.
Back to Facebook and Parakey. I said Facebook would sit tight in an earlier post this week. Clearly they aren't going to sit tight. But it's also clear to me that they are thinking like Google not MySpace. They are building a big platform play here. And I just don't think that kind of thinking leads to a sale transaction anytime soon.
The founders of Parakey include Blake Ross, who is credited with much of the seminal work on the Firefox open source browser. Parakey is also open source. So does that mean Facebook is going to open source its "social operating system"? I think so. Cool. Put your seatbelts on. This is going to be a fun ride.
The way I think of Facebook vs. MySpace has always been that FB is a technology company while MySpace is a media company.
http://csertoglu.typepad.com/sortipreneur/2007/06/myspace-now-fol.html
Posted by: Cem Sertoglu | July 20, 2007 at 07:40 AM
It's what our platform does...we call it the hybrid web. Both GiftWorks and SalesWorks are really webistes running locally on your desktop, but leveraging the power and responsiveness of the desktop and desktop controls. Need to hit a web service? Easy, seamless integration.
SalesWorks ships soon...
Posted by: Charlie Crystle | July 20, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Fred you recall the facebook hackathon. I guess we never thought anything like this coming. The acquisition is different and definitely a big step. But the direction I am not really sure whether they are developing the facebook to a web based software.
Open source and free applications is super cool. But how much can it be a comparison to MSFT may be this can happen only after a decade. Apple with all its charm is just able to take 5% of the entire OS market.
Are we ready for the web based OS. Does the current resources and the over reliability of desktop supports it.
Why not VMware can do a better job in this area than facebook. The good think is that we can have the best of both worlds online and offline.
Food for thought.
Posted by: Vijay | July 20, 2007 at 11:45 AM
And the real difference will be when Facebook develops an ad network that targets better than AdSense. Watch out Google. You'll be one-upped.
Posted by: Anon | July 20, 2007 at 02:35 PM
FB open source - I guess I dont quite get what you mean by that. The core asset that FB has is the social graph. there software by itself can be open source and will fetch FB hardly any $$. Now the question is can they open source the social graph - hmmmm. what does that mean?
Posted by: neal24 | July 20, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Take a look at Thrift!
"A group dedicated to Thrift, a cross-language software development framework created by Facebook and released to the open source community."
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2248652825
Posted by: Dimitar Vesselinov | July 20, 2007 at 04:36 PM
The social graph is not "software." The social graph is held in a digital domain BY software... software that is not open source.
There's a cost in moving social networks. If Facebook can convince people not to expend that energy then they can maintain dominance in the social networking (and beyond) space.
It's the same reason why so many people still use AOL, hotmail, and other "legacy" (for lack of a better word) services despite the better (imho) offerings out there. Once people find what they want, they are loathe to move.
Posted by: Peter C | July 21, 2007 at 02:22 PM
Facebook won't ever be really "open source" because it lacks the basic principles (which I don't forsee them changing in the near future).
Namely, a key part of open source software is full access to the source code which is important in this context because it allows people to tap the full potential of the software when they build upon it or modify it. No one can modify Facebook in its entirety; they are restricted to add-ons via pre-defined APIs, which makes it closer to Microsoft Outlook than Mozilla Thunderbird.
Furthermore, Facebook doesn't behave like an open source project. An open source project, for example, would allow people to build whatever is necessary to extricate their data from the software. Witness Facebook's legal team taking a strong stance against any project that has done that in the past.
Facebook's management are still leveraging their power as the developers to control Facebook. Fundamentally, a hallmark of an open source project is to let the community do the leading.
Mind you, while the way I put their strategy might sound bad, that really wasn't my intention. The judgement of whether this is "good" or "bad" is really up to the reader. I'm just trying to point out why I think Facebook won't ever fit into the Open Source label.
Posted by: Neil | July 23, 2007 at 05:24 AM
Yeah, what Neil says. I don't think you even understand what 'open-source' means - but then, you are a VC.
Posted by: cooper | August 02, 2007 at 05:05 PM