Back to Facebook


I had promised not to get back to this topic for a week at least. I couldn't do it. Primarily for this article by Jack Schofield on the Guardian It points out how Google's entire Opensocial is more hype than substance. It puts a direct question on the entire openness.What's so open about it? Schofield puts it this way.

First, as far as I can see, it's just a widget format, ie Google Gadgets. I'm sure there is value to having a common Google-sponsored widget format for mini-applications, because it reduces the amount of work needed to put Vampires or whatever on different social networking sites. But really, who cares?

Second, I can't see what's open about it. Sure anybody can write apps for it, but anybody can write apps for Facebook, or, indeed, Windows. There's more to come, but at the moment, it looks just as proprietary as the Facebook system it more-or-less copies. The main difference being that Google appears to own and control the OpenSocial container/API in which the widgets run. But should it feel the need, Facebook can make its system just as "open" as Google's, simply by allowing other sites to host Facebook apps.


Another interesting point: Would we all internet junkies be so welcome about the entire Opensocial thing if Microsoft were to release it? Or is it just because the big G did it , we are following suit?
The excitement of the partners of Opensocial is merely because of the attention they are getting in a world primarily ruled by Facebook,Orkut and MySpace. So be it Ning, or Bebo or salesforce, they all seem pretty happy to be on the same page as MySpace and Orkut,don't they? Read the article for more.



Technorati del.icio.us Stumbleupon Reddit

0 comments: