

Mark Cuban, Facebook, and OpenSocial - Dauntless
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/11/facebook_google_opensocial_mark_cuban.html

======
joshwa
Tim is really getting it right here-- and the analogy drawn here between the
withdrawal of the Google SOAP API's in favor of the AJAX widgets is spot on.

Google/OpenSocial and Facebook/F8 severely limit the scope of the kinds of
social applications that can be built. A widget living inside a controlled
ecosystem is not an app!

That universal social aggregator we've all been dreaming about (and that
friendfeed, readr, plaxo pulse, etc. have been trying for) is never going to
happen when the data usage is so restricted.

Let me authorize my app (via oauth or similar) and get real data feeds
(RSS/Atom/JSON) for me to mash up and leverage as I see fit! Why can't I get
an RSS feed of my Facebook friends' news feed (and not just status updates)?
And give me the firehose, let a thousand filtering algorithms bloom! Once
someone creates a compelling social network host that lets me freely extract
and aggregate all my friends' activity streams on demand, that'll be the real
social web platform we've all been waiting for, and not just a widget host.

I think this is a real crossroads for Google and Facebook-- they've both been
nominated as the next "Evil Empire", and how rigidly they control their
developer and user ecosystems will determine if we'll learn to love or fear
these companies in the next few years. Both have recently taken steps in the
wrong direction.

NB: Someone should make a try at establishing a "social news feed" standard.
An atom extension with an indication of event source, type, priority, etc...

------
shayan
I think Mr. OReilly has an interesting point about how all these different
social networks that he is a member of portray an image of who he is... and my
belief is that instead of having one ultimate platform such as Facebook with
our social graph we might have to see it spread out between different networks
... each network will focus on something specific in our lives, and will hold
information about us with regards to that particular niche, topic, group or
activities that we have ... for instance I don't think facebook could ever
replace Flickr or Ebay, and the two could have many info on me that represent
me, my activities, reputation and social graph

------
plinkplonk
"When you go to my Facebook profile, you get the real me. Thats not to say I
answer every profile question. I don't. I'm not going to disclose everything
about myself. However, the data that is available about me is the most
comprehensive, self maintained database record about me on the internet or
probably anywhere...."

" the most comprehensive, self maintained database record about me on the
internet" is not quite the same thing as "the real me" is it?

The rest of OReilly's article seems to base itself on where the "real me"
resides. On facebook vs something else.

All very bizarre.

~~~
shayan
"The rest of OReilly's article seems to base itself on where the "real me"
resides. On facebook vs something else."

I am not sure if it says where else it resides, I think every part of the real
me (in this article Mr. OReilly's real me) resides in different parts, and in
order to get _complete real me_ you then have to combine all these graphs
(networks)

if phography is my hobby, then I will probably be very active on Flickr and my
social graph there is just one angel of what the real me is ... it is the real
me in the world of photography, or its the real me when I am playing the role
of a photographer, which couldnt necessarily be copied easily with more
general sites, like Facebook or Myspace

~~~
plinkplonk
Good Point.

My point (poorly expressed no doubt) was that searching for the "real me" in
_any_ combination of websites sounds bizarre (to me).

    
    
     There are large chunks of my life and personality my "real me")  that fall outside my activities on the web. Even with your photography example, hopefully there are aspects of your photography experience/intent/whatever that are *not* captured on flickr.
    

I guess i was just responding to the notion of the "realness" of a person
being captured/capturable on the web.

------
joshwa
Also, I think perhaps a more descriptive title is warranted here...

waxy's title: Tim O'Reilly on Open Social and Facebook (he nicely articulates
why both fall short, while reframing the problem with a solid prediction)

