

We are in the AOL days of social networking - imaginator
http://buddycloud.com/cms/content/we-are-aol-days-social-networking

======
timdellinger
As much as I agree with the overall premise (Facebook won't be king of the
mountain forever), I'm still a bit unsure about what the driving force will be
for users to go from Facebook to "open" alternatives.

The driving force for leaving AOL was clear: there's a big, exciting internet
out there that's more interesting and innovative than AOL chatrooms and AOL
keywords, and the user base was also getting a little more comfortable with
computers and didn't need AOL to hold it's hand so much any more.

I don't see a similar driving force for leaving Facebook. As a matter of fact,
Facebook is embracing innovation, pre-emptively embracing whatever things
might give users a reason to jump ship.

~~~
bradleyland
We've already seen one mass-user migration from MySpace to Facebook. What
happens when a newcomer caters to the needs of a large enough portion of the
Facebook crowd that you get fragmentation? Will people simply accept the
social fiefdoms, or will they seek out something different? Something more
open?

Were this new, open network to exist, you could re-write the statement in your
second paragraph to read:

"There's a big, exciting open social network out there that's more interesting
and innovative than Facebook messages and friend feeds, and the user base is
also getting a little more comfortable with computers and don't need Facebook
to hold it's hand so much any more."

That's not to say I don't think Facebook would react positively and hook in to
any open networks, but it's going to take some serious momentum to get them to
pivot.

~~~
hessenwolf
And yahoo to google. Facebook has a bigger moat because of logins, but, erm, I
still think messaging is a pain in the ass.

------
BarkMore
What if social networking is like instant messaging? After many years, the
proprietary instant messaging services have not been replaced with an open
alternative. Open does not always win.

~~~
quanticle
The fact that the proprietary protocols haven't been replaced by more open
alternatives is largely irrelevant where the end-user is concerned. As long as
the protocols have been reverse-engineered to the point where cross-platform
tools are possible, it doesn't matter (to the user) whether the underlying
protocols are open or closed.

There are now a plethora of instant messenger clients that allow for a single
sign on to various instant messaging networks. I think we might see the same
in the future for social networks. Facebook and Twitter will be relegated to
the role that the various instant message protocols play in a multi-network
client.

~~~
BarkMore
Not only have the client to server protocols been reverse engineered, some
proprietary IM services supply libraries for using their proprietary client to
server protocols.

When I mentioned IM, I was referring to the fact that service to service
communication is closed. With the exception of the XMPP network and some one-
off deals between some of the big services, services to not communicate with
each other. There is not a single federated instant messaging network.

There is a single federated network for email. I can send a message from my
account on Hotmail to Gmail without having an account on Gmail. Imagine what
the world would be like if we couldn't do that. We would all have accounts on
several services, each with their own inbox. It would suck.

~~~
moe
_Imagine what the world would be like if we couldn't do that._

It would probably be little bit like needing an account on Facebook, Linkedin,
Xing, Twitter, Myspace, Flickr, Google and a dozen other properties that
barely - if at all - interact with one another.

 _It would suck._

Exactly.

~~~
samlevine
>It would suck.

Not for most users. They simply reuse the same login credentials at all the
sites they use. Other sites make apps that allow data to flow into Facebook
easily.

Soon all Facebook users will be able to maintain their contact information
over a variety of methods (e-mail, sms, etc.).

In the end, we already have a federated network that solves the problem for
most people: Facebook.

------
dasil003
I don't like the analogy. AOL wanted to be the gatekeeper to the Internet and
charge users a fee for their "premium" content. They were replaced because the
internet is infrastructure, and a million other entities created sites and
services that were better than what AOL was trying to charge for.

Facebook on the other hand, embraces the open web, and sinks it's hooks in via
extremely elegant and lightweight hooks like Login with Facebook and FBJS that
have impeccable usability and deliver measurable value to site owners. They
are not fighting against current trends, rather they are defining and riding
them.

Facebook will not be in trouble until their business model starts to collide
with user interests. Privacy concerns are a potential problem for them, but
don't fool yourselves that even a sizable minority of users care about that
_yet_.

~~~
michaelchisari
_Facebook on the other hand, embraces the open web_

No offense, but I find that to be an odd definition of "open web".

They don't support a distributed protocol and they don't support data
portability in any meaningful way.

~~~
yariv
I work on the Facebook platform team.

Facebook Platform supports OAuth as a standard authentication protocol for 3rd
party apps. It also provides APIs that developers can use to export data users
have entered into facebook (with the user's permission, of course). What do
you think is missing in Facebook's support for data portability?

~~~
JonnieCache
I want to be able to dump out the photos from all the albums which contain
photos of me. The API doesn't let me do this without a hack involving walking
all my friends albums.

EDIT: and a full realtime read/write XMPP-style interface for all the data
going in/out of my profile please! :)

~~~
nroman
Check out
[https://graph.facebook.com/me/photos?access_token=<inser...](https://graph.facebook.com/me/photos?access_token=<insert)
graph api access token here>

------
MBlume
this article mostly seems like a lot of applause lights. The author likes
'open' and wants to believe that 'open' will win. It's won once before, and so
the author calls it 'inevitable'. That's not supporting an argument. The
universe is still allowed to turn around and say 'so what,' and do something
different.

~~~
michaelchisari
It's inevitable, because those of us who are working on it aren't going to
give up, amongst other reasons.

Further, the ability to have niche/community/localized, etc. social networking
sites that inter-operate is an achilles heel to the one-site-fits-all approach
of Facebook.

Once a set of social networking sites come out that inter-operate, and people
see how it's done, then Facebook, Myspace, etc. will all feel very antiquated
and walled off. Imagine when people started trading email addresses, and the
AOL people had to say "no, I can't email, but my aol screen name is..."

~~~
dasil003
That doesn't mean it's inevitable, you may well die before you succeed.

The ability for federated social networking to take off hinges on user
experience. It's not impossible, but Facebook has a huge advantage in crafting
a user experience because it doesn't have to worry about the technical
pitfalls of a federated system.

~~~
michaelchisari
This isn't just about myself, though. There are approximately 50 other
projects all working towards distributed social network. Some may be farther
than others, but there's just too much interest from the open source world to
say that Facebook's reign (or the reign of walled gardens, even) is immortal.

And I would even wager that, once a protocol is adopted, that some of the
smaller social networking sites will add support for it as a way to compete
with the big guys.

It may take time, it may not be for a while, and it won't happen over night,
but those of us who believe strongly in the open web are a bit too zealous to
ever admit defeat.

~~~
dasil003
Sure, but how long will it take to topple Facebook? The article talks about
2011. I'd be willing to bet Facebook will still be the largest social network
in 2020. 10 years in tech is an eternity, so I feel that that's a pretty
strong assertion. To say that some kind of set of open social networking
protocol will dominate in 15, 20, 30 years is a pretty open-ended prediction
that's hard to argue with.

~~~
michaelchisari
My prediction is that by around 2013/2014, Facebook will use an open,
distributed protocol. Just like AOL eventually embraced SMTP and the web.

They will still be one of the biggest nodes (expect one of China's social
networks to fight for that crown, however), but as time goes on, it will
matter less and less. Just like AOL.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Sorry, but no way. By 2014, Facebook will BE the distributed protocol. Look
how many sites already use Facebook as their primary (or only) source of
login. Next up will be allowing people to pay for things using Facebook
credits with a single click.

Aside from that, what's the real benefit to an "open distributed social
network" for normal people? Comparison to email isn't quite right, because
email was still taking off back in the AOL days, but everyone is on Facebook
now. So there's no need to worry about whether someone is on FB. Additionally,
using FB doesn't wall you off in the same way that AOL did vs. the normal web.
You can use some niche social network AND Facebook. I just don't see the big
deal, and the vast majority of Facebook users don't either. There's just not a
pain point that these open "solutions" solve.

I applaud your dedication to openness, but just because other things have gone
open doesn't mean that social networking will, and definitely not in the next
3-4 years. Two things could kill Facebook: long-term technology trends, and
Facebook itself. The former will take forever, and the latter seems unlikely,
given most people's disregard for their own data privacy. In either case, FB
will still be on top in 2020.

~~~
michaelchisari
_By 2014, Facebook will BE the distributed protocol._

If Facebook pushes a truly distributed protocol, then I have no issue with
that. I'll build a set of hooks for Appleseed to support that protocol, and
I'm sure the other projects will do the same.

 _Look how many sites already use Facebook as their primary (or only) source
of login._

That's not a distributed protocol, when you're dealing with a centralized
login.

 _just because other things have gone open doesn't mean that social networking
will, and definitely not in the next 3-4 years_

Would you like to cast a wager on that? In all seriousness. I'll bet you $1
that by 2015, Facebook is either facing, or has faced, a major challenge from
open standards in the social networking space.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I don't mean "distributed protocol" in the same sense that you do.

A post ago, you said they would _use_ an open distributed protocol by
2013/2014, but now they'll just have to be facing a "major challenge" from one
by 2015?

You should post a challenge on longbets.org.

~~~
michaelchisari
_I don't mean "distributed protocol" in the same sense that you do._

What do you mean, then? Facebook's graph api is definitely not distributed,
it's very centralized.

 _now they'll just have to be facing a "major challenge" from one by 2015?_

I'll gladly take the wager that they'll be using an open, distributed protocol
by 2013/2014. How about this, $2 for that, $1 for a major challenge by 2015.

------
27182818284
There are more people using Facebook than there are people in the US. AOL and
its chat rooms were the "AOL days" of social networking. We're in a type of
middle. The line from Space Balls comes to mind: "We're at now, now."

------
rythie
I hope we'll end up with something open, but I have my doubts. There are still
many closed systems that indicate that it _may_ not happen:

* Apple released their closed Mac Store today after 25+ years of a open system, to add to their many closed systems. Apple have shown several times they will block apps. they don't like.

* We've had 35+ years of games consoles, on which the games are tightly controlled by the supplier of the console. Microsoft have already indicated they will not allow certain types of games in to use Kinect.

* 100+ years after the invention of the Telephone we have Skype, which is controlled by a single company.

* Whilst Email is open. Microsoft, Google or Yahoo control so much of the market they can and do effectively stop you talking to your customers by marking your mails as spam and making it hard to appeal (e.g. previous spammer on your IP)

~~~
pyre

      > * 100+ years after the invention of the Telephone
      > we have Skype, which is controlled by a single company.
    

Bad example. See Ma Ball ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System> ).

~~~
rythie
Good point, I was just thinking about global monopolies. BT of course did a
similar thing in the U.K.

------
jasonkester
That metaphor just doesn't work.

AOL was a walled garden that survived first by convincing people that there
was no real Internet outside of it, and then by trying to pretend that the
"Internet" was just a part of AOL.

Eventually, people caught on that there was in fact this giant Internet out
there all by itself, and AOL wasn't technically required to access it. So
people left.

Facebook, however, is the _entire_ Facebook. There is no giant social entity
outside of it that people are being kept away from. It's an end product.

So sure, somebody may make a bigger, better one. But they're not going to
suddenly remove the blindfold and expose Facebook users to the Truth, because
it's just plain not out there.

------
RobPfeifer
Open doesn't always win - check out Tim Wu's book the Master Switch. It traces
the history of telephone, TV, radio, film (and the Internet, though I haven't
gotten there yet). Theodore Vail and AT&T essentially created a massive closed
network and David Sarnoff at RCA/NBC did the same with radio & television.
They eventually lost their grip on their monopolies, but the government was
involved in both. While this isn't a perfect analogy, the imperialist nature
of their founders sounds familiar :)

One interesting question: If Facebook and Twitter are NBC and CBS, who will be
the cable provider for social networking?

~~~
wladimir
That's very USA-centered though. Usually, something was open in some countries
and closed in others, depending on legislation in that country. Closed systems
of global scale are a pretty new thing, and it's not clear how this will play
out.

------
T_S_
Add new entities, add new relations between them. The "social" in the network
starts to fade and it simply becomes the network we use to get what we want.

Facebook has a nice beachhead, but that does not mean the game is over.

------
taylorwc
I agree with the sentiment in general, but I don't think the analogy is as
solid as the author portrays. Facebook and Twitter, unlike AOL, have not only
embraced, but in many ways encouraged other apps and social communities to be
built around them, leverage their APIs, and have tried to be a unifying hub of
activity, rather than the SOLE destination for their users.

------
EGreg
Yes, this is very true. See <http://myownstream.com/blog#2010-05-21> ;-)

