Facebook Users: Here's What FriendFeed Brings to the Family
It's going to be a little like the Brady Bunch, this union between Facebook and the just-acquired social networking service FriendFeed. Both families will influence each other a lot, though Facebook is far, far bigger. (The youngest one in curls!)
FriendFeed was co-founded by Paul Buchheit, the man who invented GMail, and by Bret Taylor, who co-founded Google Maps. They both made enough money from being early Google Employees that they never needed to work again and didn't need to sell to Facebook - but they joined Facebook because they wanted the work they'd done on FriendFeed to change the world of social networking. Here's what they bring to Facebook; it's probably going to change Facebook a lot.
FriendFeed is a very unusual social network, but we've long suspected it represents the future of social networking. We got one of the first interviews with Taylor and Buchheit eighteen months ago and that podcast is still one of the best ways to learn about how FriendFeed works.
Now that the service has been live for some time, here are the most important parts of it that will likely influence the way Facebook works.
1. Public Profiles and Content
Facebook started out as a site where you couldn't see the pages and posts of people you didn't know. It still retains a lot of that flavor, but this summer Facebook started moving toward a much more public and less private experience.
FriendFeed is very public. Everyones' profiles and postings on the site are public and the software has a very interesting flow that prompts people to discover new users that they have no connection with other than conversation around a common topic. FriendFeed's innovations in managing very public conversation will likely come in handy for Facebook as that site opens up more and more too. It's a sensitive subject, as most Facebook users like the privacy orientation just like it is, so bringing in some top minds on fast, frictionless, public social networking is a smart move by Facebook.
2. In-depth Conversations
Conversations around shared items on FriendFeed make Facebook look like MySpace. It's not that FriendFeed has more sophisticated users - though by being limited to early adopters so far is part of that. it's because of a key difference in the architecture of FriendFeed.
When I post something to FriendFeed, all of my friends see it. If one of them comments on it or "likes" it, then two things happen that don't happen on Facebook. First, our conversation suddenly appears in the news feed of all the friends of the person who commented on my item - whether they know me or not. That doesn't happen on Facebook. I can see the names of people who comment on my friends' items - but if my friends comment on items shared by their friends I don't know - there's no notification of that in my news feed.
Second, whenever anyone comments on or "likes" any item that's appeared in my stream of friends' updates - it's pushed back up to the top of my FriendFeed page. That makes it all the more likely that I will comment on it again or for the first time.
These two features lead to one thing: big, diverse, thorough conversations around items shared on FriendFeed. It's a defining quality of the service and one that Facebook users might really like to have as an option.
When FriendFeed users complain that Facebook is stupid and filled with dumb apps (remember complaining about how ugly MySpace was?) it's in large part because the conversation on FriendFeed has a lot more depth to it.
Neither of these features are as simple as described above. FriendFeed's Buchheit told us by phone today that both have a lot of complex rules that have evolved around them based on the experience of having this kind of social software in the wild. Learning what kinds of content to cross over from one social group to another and how to decay the prominence of conversations over time are among the skills that the FriendFeed team can no doubt offer Facebook.
3. Cross Group Interactions
You meet new people on FriendFeed. They show up again and again in conversations with your friends until you make some of those new people friends of your own. That's very different from Facebook, where you connect with people you already knew from real life.
4. Multiple Network Aggregation
Conversation starters on FriendFeed don't just come from people inputting text right into FriendFeed - most of it comes from content pulled automatically in from other networks. Especially Twitter. (From a technical perspective, you have to wonder if Twitter is going to turn off full "firehose" access to FriendFeed this afternoon or if they'll wait until tomorrow morning. Twitter can't be excited about giving their crown jewels to Facebook all the sudden.)
Bookmarks, slide presentations, videos favorited on YouTube - all kinds of other social networks get synced up with your FriendFeed account and then get pulled in automatically to be discussed on FriendFeed. That's one of the best things about FriendFeed - you can follow a person and see what they are doing across all kinds of other sites, whether you participate as well in those other sites or not.
That's quite different from the way that Facebook has tried to pull items in one at a time through Facebook Connect.
Thousands of people are helping FriendFeed stay valuable even though they never use the service anymore - they synced up their other accounts and their activity there is still being pulled in automatically so their friends can view it on FriendFeed.
5. Real Time Updates
Facebook is definitely interested in real time updates, and they offer a version of real time streaming already. FriendFeed feels a lot more real time though. On FriendFeed you don't get notification that there are new messages - you get served up the messages, comments, likes and other information as they happen using a technology called Long Polling. It can be overwhelming for the uninitiated - but so was the Facebook News Feed when it was launched.
We wouldn't be surprised if some of the real time features of FriendFeed found their way into Facebook. FriendFeed's Buchheit told us earlier this year that he believes real time conversation is the next big step on the web.
How realistic is cross pollination?
We talked to Buchheit on the phone this afternoon in what was a nice but relatively superficial PR phone call. He cautioned that he "wouldn't read too much into future Facebook development" because the two companies "have different histories." But he also said that he was interested in joining Facebook's team because the companies have "the same long term view." When asked for specifics on what exactly that means, Facebook's VP of Engineering Mike Schroepfer said he had to "decline to go into specifics." But said there was "a long standing mutual admiration, both products have evolved with each other."
We fully expect that Facebook gave up a respectable chunk of stock and cash to get the FriendFeed guys into their offices and not just to keep the chairs warm. FriendFeed will likely change Facebook in important ways and for now looking at how FriendFeed works is the best set of clues we have available.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
One network to rule them all. Sorry, couldn't resist :)
But what do friendfeed users get?
I am not a fan of facebook, my family and friends are on facebook but they don't want to see what tech news I am discussing etc.
if they close friendfeed down then great I will rebuild a new version :D
It would be nice if they keep the 2 seperate and maybe share tech but I get the feeling friendfeed.com will just point to facebook in the end :(
Great overview of rapid changes in the social media space, as always, Marshall. I rarely go to FriendFeed since my stream is auto-populated by Twitter. Also, I just never got in the habit of it because the FF interface used to be so ugly.
But now that Twitter has turned off the all replies spigot -- which used to be one of the coolest features about Twitter -- and FF will likely have tighter integration with FB, I think FF becomes much more appealing all of a sudden. Some may flock to FriendFeed more frequently for insider information and connections, relegating Twitter to more of a mass medium/broadcast platform. And obviously, a lot of folks who are on FB but not on Twitter may be introduced to FF now and never migrate to Twitter.
I never thought I'd ever say this, but Twitter should be a little worried. Not a lot. But a little.
@CarriBugbee
Social Profiles: http://bit.ly/CarriB
Real time search is definitely an incredibly functional tool. A good website in this space is www.gethighnote.com, which has search as well as track and share. It's results are pretty useful and the track has helped me find some pretty cool information that might otherwise get lost.
I think your points 1 through 4 were exactly the reasons FriendFeed never caught on: people do not want to see the conversations of strangers. It's of no interest to them that some casual business acquaintance in Seattle is having a conversation about her wedding shower with other local friends they've never met.
They don't want to see that same casual acquaintances pictures from her 4th of July barbeque. Or read her grandma's comments about them.
And it's way to much effort to set up who gets to see what, when, where and how.
Twitter & Facebook currently do a very good job of separating church and state:
Facebook is for people you know.
Twitter is for people you don't know.
The idea of changing that paradigm seems wrong-headed. (And sorry Carrie, but while you may have liked the "see all replies" feature, I firmly believe that part of Twitter's initial appeal was that you did not have to see what strangers were saying to your acquaintances.
But back to Facebook: FF can help FB with conversation on the Fan Pages, the ones designed for brands. That's "commercial speech" if you will and if you're on there, you've tacitly given permission to listen to strangers. Or brands.
Just don't mess with the feed and make us see comments from strangers or subject us to anything vaguely resembling FF's makes-My-Space-look-elegant design.
Allan, you are part of that "why do I care what you ate for breakfast." that doesn't get the value realtime conversations have to people. For example, thanks to realtime conversations, I saved 20 bucks by not going to see the "Bruno" movie. There's valuable insight, you just need to look beyond the old "what are you doing right now?" motto.
Marshall,
While it's true that lots of things on Friendfeed are public, saying that "Everyones' profiles and postings on the site are public" is simply not true. FF makes it VERY easy to create private "rooms", where users can gather and discuss things in a space that isn't public, but integrates seamlessly with each user's own feed. I actually find it far easier to use that Facebook's comparatively clunky privacy granularity. If and when the Facebook team moves forward with the long-promised "post status to certain friend groups", then they'll have a portion of the privacy functionality already built into FF.
Posted by: kenzoid.com
|
August 10, 2009 8:41 PM
Marshall, from a product perspective, what is Facebook really getting here? Can't they implement everything you outline on their own? Is this really a talent play for Facebook? Was it defensive (e.g., was Twitter looking at FF)?
Regarding social networks, it seems to me that a range of flavors will emerge (completely private like geni.com to the public cross-pollinated fire hose of FriendFeed). All serve a valid purpose for different/overlapping audiences.
I can't help but think it's like a Betamax/VHS scenario. For those of us who remember when (and no, you wise guys, I don't mean 8 -track!) both platforms were good, they came out around the same time... and it can even be argued that Betamax had better quality. FF has more options, but... if the "people" elect Twitter the platform and use it, then ultimately, Friendfeed is the betamax. A great technology that withers. There are many platforms chasing the same fickle (?) audience.
Posted by: Jody Raines
|
August 10, 2009 10:12 PM
Why would Twitter do that? It would be an idiotic move by Twitter, and force them into even further "walled garden" mode. Twitter needs to prove they're more open, not less - cutting off FriendFeed just removes them from becoming "the pulse of the internet". Not to mention I bet they have contractual obligations.
Posted by: Jesse Stay
|
August 10, 2009 10:16 PM
"It would be an idiotic move by Twitter" -- Has that ever stopped them before?
Posted by: Ken Sheppardson
|
August 10, 2009 10:17 PM
Ken, I didn't say it wouldn't stop them. I only said it would be an idiotic move. :-)
Posted by: Jesse Stay
|
August 10, 2009 11:34 PM
This is an interesting and exciting development, although I'm against the acquisition I am intrigued about the role of Friendfeed and what will happen next!
@Chad: "Allan (sic) you are part of that "why do I care what you ate for breakfast." that doesn't get the value realtime conversations have to people."
Not at all Chad.
Real time conversations are great.
I too did not go see Bruno based on what my friends were reporting via Twitter and Facebook.
But that's the thing: I got that feedback from peoples whose taste in movies I knew were similar to my own. Why would I care what a bunch of strangers thought about Bruno?
If I wanted the real time opinions of random strangers, I could do a Twitter search or (more likely) go to Yahoo Movies and get that (along with times and the ability to buy tickets)
Which is not to say there aren't situations where the opinions of random strangers wouldn't be useful: say I were traveling to Seattle and didn't know a soul there. If I wanted to know if it was raining that day, then anyone could give me a valid answer.
It's the subjective things most people don't want to know about.
cardy ugg boots
cardy ugg
cardy uggs
classic short ugg
classic short uggs
ugg classic short
ugg bailey button
women's bailey button
bailey button ugg
Women's UGG Sundance II
UGG Sundance II
ugg sundance
This is an important move and good news for Friendfeed, because despite of great effort in past few days , friendfeed could not come any where close to Twitter. With facebook we can expect to see friendfeed creating lots of difference. I hope facebook will not change its name to facefeed ;)
Someone got me thinking about the role that Facebook Connect could play in all of this. Currently it enables you to post activity from FBC supporting sites that you're logged into back to your Facebook update stream.
Life gets more interesting if FBC is extended out to FriendFeed, so that site is aggregating activity from all Facebook Connect sites too. Better still again if FBC is extended to enable a FriendFeed stream to be pulled back to FBC supporting sites.
This would enable our Facebook Connect supporting site to show ALSO become an aggregator, of sorts, by showing exactly what your FriendFeed stream shows.
The short: Facebook rewards FBC supporting sites by enabling them to become aggregators and everyone needs a Facebook account for it to happen.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
will Twitter turn off full "firehose" access to FriendFeed this afternoon or will they wait until tomorrow morning? http://bit.ly/zTBvT [from http://twitter.com/marshallk/statuses/3233910179]
Posted by: Marshall Kirkpatrick
|
August 14, 2009 1:18 AM
each user or group can be set as public or private in friendfeed
this is closer to twitter permission system and would greatly improve facebook if implemented
FriendFeed search sucks at picking up Tweets today. Something's happened.
Posted by: Nick in Manila
|
August 15, 2009 2:18 AM
Who is going to stop governments and corporations from using Facebook to identify and target dissidents? Imagine if Joe McCarthy had had FACEBOOK at his disposal during the communist witch hunts of the 1950s. What safeguards do we have to prevnt that sortt of abuse?
Well your wrong about one thing. You CAN privatize your FriendFeed. Only those you allow can see your feeds if you so wish.