OpenSocial is a hugely ambitious project that would tie together Google, MySpace and numerous other social networking platforms in a common environment that application publishers could publish widgets to with one set of code.
There are some issues that need to be discussed about OpenSocial, however. It's not all a bed of roses, believe it or not.
]]> Here's my list of concerns, what's on yours?When rumors about OpenSocial started to take shape it appeared that it would be all based on Google - that communication between social networks would have to go through Google. According to participating companies now free to discuss the platform, that's not the case. An application could jump from MySpace to Ning without ever having to communicate with Google.
Still remaining is the question of Google's control over the standards creation process. It's not possible that one of the largest companies in the US and the largest in this consortium would act entirely out of concern for the world at large. You know they bullied everyone else involved into accepting their terms of openness, at least a little and probably a lot.
Google has control over a frightening amount of information about our world, from maps and email to genetics and the world's libraries. Tell me it's a brave new, open social world and Google is leading the charge and I can't help but be skeptical. They make great apps but I won't accept the brain implant no matter how open Google assures me it will be.
While most APIs tend to be read-only, the OpenSocial APIs might be capable only of allowing widgets to be published from one network to another. Will one network be able to pull in bio, friend and interest data from another? That's not being discussed at all.
The phrase Open Social implies portability of personal and social data. That would be exciting but there are entirely different protocols underway to deal with those ideas. As some people have told me tonight, it may have been more accurate to call this "OpenWidget" - though the press wouldn't have been as good. We've been waiting for data and identity portability - is this all we get?
Web 2.0 application adoption tends to develop entirely outside of the official IT plan. Big media's "viral content" is almost always awful. When The Man tries to "get hip" it's usually a real disaster.
Why couldn't this all be based on microformats and other existing open standards? Why the mysterious, brand-driven, limited APIs? Perhaps the culture of control and mega-corporate blessing is the only thing that the big players participating could comprehend. In that case it's probable that OpenSocial will likely be more closed and more anti-social than many of us would like.
There's a whole lot of excitement around OpenSocial, and with good reason. I'm excited to see what it makes possible - but I'm also very cautious to see how reality compares to big words and an impressive participant list.
]]>1) Even if Google tries to exercise control, it will not succeed. We have moved away from one company trying to control the standards. Also, they don't use proprietary language here. Even if Google tries to control, an open platform is far superior than facebook or the kinda control Microsoft usually vests on their partners.
2) From the initial sound bites, it appears that it is the host (container) that determines what is allowed outside and what is not. I suppose open social doesn't play a direct role in it. Someone should correct me if I have got it wrong.
3) I don't see any mysterious brand driven APIs. It may not have embraced open standards right away but it is involving right set of people. If people like Marc Canter and Chris Messna are getting excited, I am pretty sure there is ample chances that open social is going in the right direction. I find this concern totally unfounded. Compared to the alternative (facebook), it is more open. Also, as Chris Messna points out in his recent blog post, open implies that open social is not an end point in the movement towards open standards. It is the first step in the right direction. If Google tries to force itself in, there will be another company offering much open standards than this and people will embrace it. As I said before, this concern is unnecessary.
I hope people like Chris Messna or Marc Canter will step in here and offer a better response. In any case, this is far better than the "standards" we already have (facebook's walled garden) and this is the only direction which we can take. How far Google takes this is a valid question but we cannot question the direction of the move. Anything from a walled or closed system to an open system is a good move.
]]>http://blog.kindalab.com/2007/11/02/the-object-oriented-web/
]]>My thoughts:
http://blog.engagd.com/2007/11/3-questions-about-opensocial.html
Facebook is the premier social network, I may occasionally use ning etc but the action is on Facebook. That's where developers are likely to congregate.
]]>That about sums up the situation. A few million MySpace pages are about to sprout a new batch of annoying Javascript gadgets... that's about it. There's no there there.
People didn't join Facebook to add apps to their profiles, and they're not going to migrate elsewhere for the sake of a different API. No one is going to think, "Well, my friends are all on Facebook, but Orkut lets me help some third-rate startup monetize its assets by scattering random widgetjunk across my public profile... so it's Orkut for me!"
]]>Widgetization scatters the already segmented life of a user.
However, I think Google is exercising leadership here, but MySpace hopefully is not exercising control.
]]>It's really great to have your analytical thinking back in the front of the discussion.
I too see some risks and challenges, and have outlined them (and benefits) on this post
http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2007/11/02/explaining-opensocial-to-your-executives/
]]>"The phrase Open Social implies portability of personal and social data."
No kidding. I couldn't agree more with that sentence and this is quite frankly what I was expecting this initiative to be about. It's your data, your bio, your contacts, so feel free to aggregate it, mash it up in ways you deem appropiate or interesting. If OpenSocial means a venue to post Virtual Flowers or Mood emoticons left and right then I'll pass on.
]]>It would allow for Google to create one social network site that would join the information created on all of these different networks. So, all of my profiles are linked to my SocialStream profile.
I bet that Google will make it possible for people to write information from SocialStream to the other networks.
It was a brilliant move from Google. Not a move "just to make the world better", but for their own benefit. It opens the door for Google to easily create the largest social networking site by fard.
Who bets in a couple of weeks they announce SocialStream? There was quite a bit of chatter around it not long ago.
]]>Check out Orkut Sandbox screenshots at -
http://mytechrantings.blogspot.com/2007/11/orkut-sandbox-initial-looks.html
Of more interest is that apps are authenticated by a login to your Google account. That means Google owns the treasure map that can link data across Social Networks. Only Google is in a position to know that "PizzaMan" on MySpace is really "Bill Clinton" on LinkedIn. They know because the same Google account was used in both places.
More on my blog:
http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/google-is-in-the-cat-bird-seat-for-identity-matching-in-opensocial/
]]>It also puts more control in fewer hands, which is one thing I am never excited about.
]]>Is Google Exercising Leadership or Control?
I must congratulate you for being able to voice this out. Deep inside every one of us is the inherent fear of Big Brother. We live in a society where many of our actions are governed by rules made by someone else. Because Google is huge, they possess the capability to make huge waves. However, with great power comes great responsibility, and we all know a revolution is in order should they try to step over the line. With that said, a leader has to emerge in the Internet business -- there is not much choice and the answer is obviously Google, and thus they are taking the lead.
Here's my first look at Google's Open Social:
http://blog.codesignstudios.com/2007/11/02/first-look-at-the-opensocial-api/
The RNIA was set up to provide a high-ground for such discussion in a way that takes into account all sides of the equation. It is the people that drive networking and the technology that supports it, not the other way around.
It is the people that are your constituents who must feel comfortable with the changes in this industry. The article as posted, as well as the responses, indicate that this is not necessarily the case. How much Relationship Capital has truly been built with the public on this?
We would certainly welcome such discussions as we continue to build our Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) in a way that truly benefits all.
]]>Having tried and failed to develop their own social network (Orkut) Google missed out on owning a major stake in the social media boom. This was a missed business opportunity for them, but probably more importantly it has also prevented them from gaining any significant access to the rich web of social media data being generated by these social media platforms.
Social web data is essential to the next generation of search ranking algorithms and Google needs access to this data in order to stay relevant. Open Social looks like a brilliant way for Google to get their hands on this data while at the same time appearing a benevolent contributor to the online community. Props!
]]>I am also wondering what happens if Google for some reason doesnt like the way you utilize this "service"? Will they control what its being used for?
If the API is totally disconnected from Google then its all good but if it isnt then what if Google shuts down, gets hacked, becomes EVIL? What will happen the apps and all the social networks using them?
I would like an Open API but not one controlled by One company.
7 years ago I designed (on paper) a so called Social Network OS which in some ways work like this but broken down to much smaller pieces that work together "intelligently". I was hoping Open Social would be like this but instead its an easy way to make social widgets platform.
Oh well maybe in another 7 years it will come true.
OpenSocialDataToGoogleBecauseTheyDoNoEvilOrAtleastTheyWantTheWorldToThinkThatTheyDoNoEvil.
I see a lot of spam related issues especially if this is capable of porting data from one network to the other, not sure how they would tackle this. Imagine this thing, Social Networks are the only place where Google doesnt have any data (since they are closed networks). Once Google has all it wants in terms of data and reach, they will ditch all these MySpace, LinkedIn, Bebo kind of people.
To FB, join this, but only on your terms :-)
]]>However, I can't blame Google for trying to create a unified widget platform in trying to gobble up Facebook's pie.
Anytime you have Microsoft going against Google its a nice fight to watch. The funny thing is Google is becoming more and more like Microsoft, and Facebook is starting to look like a nice little smart kid on the block like Google did 9 years ago.
check out http://opensocialapplist.com/
]]>As I see it, the APIs do not exclude microformats or OpenId or any other truly open technologies. Any engineers wil be able to integrate and if they turn out to be best they will be universally adopted, even if Google tries to push it's own formats.
Since the whole goal is to make it so open the Facebook can;t be better, they will not have the luxury of putting in proprietary boundaries later is they prefer.
The APIs and containers may need a lot of work (specifically around safety) but the principle of Openness will mean that it will be scrubbed like any good open source code base, and potentially perfected by many thousand scrubbing hands.
Google will not be able to lock in AdSense and Checkout. All providers will have equal access. They won't be able to lock in GooglePC or Gmail as everyone else will have the same hooks to take advantage of.
While i think OpenSocial will be slow and clumsy and over-hyped and flawed at first. I'm very bullish on overall.
Here are the 10 reasons I think it will be very beneficial:
http://tinyurl.com/3ayghq
TedR/Dogster
]]>This seems like another thinly veiled strategy to expand the scope of knowledge they accumulate about each individual Internet user.
I would be very, very wary about adopting a platform that provides additional personal information to Google.
]]>