How Open Is Facebook, Really?
When Facebook announced their "open
platform" in May 2007, it suddenly became all the rage. Third party web app
developers rushed to integrate their apps into this increasingly popular social network
platform - and who could blame them? It makes sense for startups to have a presence on a
platform that has tens of millions of users. Plus, Facebook promised a more open
experience than its arch-rival, the Rupert Murdoch-owned MySpace. As Facebook Founder and
CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at the F8
launch in May, "at Facebook, we're pushing to make the world a more open place".
But how open is Facebook, really? Turns out, not that much.
In researching this article, I discovered that there isn't much argument over whether Facebook is open or closed. Most agree that it is not, at heart, an open platform. But there is certainly disagreement over how open or closed it is; and therefore whether Facebook is ultimately good or bad for the Web. Some say that Facebook is as closed a platform as AOL was, in the early days of the Net. In this post we'll explore that theme - and try to determine whether Facebook will suffer the same fate as AOL in the 90's.
Position 1: Facebook is Bad
Let's first look at the argument that Facebook is not only not open, but is ultimately bad for the Web. Jason Kottke perhaps represented this position best, with a post at the end of June entitled: Facebook is the new AOL. The post's title clearly implies that Facebook circa 2007 is as much a walled garden (i.e. closed platform) as AOL was back in 1994. Kottke's argument is that instead of web apps plugging into Facebook, it should be the other way round: i.e. web apps should "run on the internet, out in the open, and people can tie their social network into it if they want." In a follow-up post, Kottke clarified that "the platform is great for Facebook, but it's a step sideways or even backwards (towards an AOL-style service) for the web."
Kottke made some great points: that most Facebook data is private (you need to be a member to access it) and that it's not indexed by Google or other search engines. Indeed, in both respects, Facebook is more closed than MySpace!
Walled Garden Pic: Alex
Eckford
Position 2: Facebook is Good
Marc Andreessen has a thorough post extolling
the virtues of Facebook. Note that he doesn't say that the platform is open; nevertheless
his position is that Facebook is overall good for Web developers and startups. He says
"the Facebook API enables outside web developers to inject new features and content into
the Facebook environment." He goes on to argue that Facebook's development platform is
more sophisticated than MySpace's 'embedding', because Facebook provides "a full suite of
APIs" to developers, it provides easy distribution and allows third parties to earn money
off their Facebook apps. Andreessen makes some very valid points - in summary, that the
Facebook platform is great for developers and also for users.
Why Facebook Isn't Open
Facebook ultimately is a closed, proprietary system. Primarily this is because Facebook doesn't use existing Web standards for mark-up or database language. Instead of using HTML and SQL, Facebook uses two "variants" - called FQL and FBML. The official reason for the variants is that they offer more functionality and integration within the Facebook environment - which is no doubt true, however it also of course means your apps can only run in Facebook. As Andreessen noted, the upshot is that "Facebook's own code and functionality remains closed and proprietary."
What is FBML? Dare Obasanjo described it well: "The markup language [FBML] is a collection of "safe" HTML tags like blockquote and table, and custom Facebook-only tags like fb:create-button, fb:friend-selector and fb:if-is-friends-with-viewer."
Facebook is not an open platform, let's get that straight. However it is a very usable, flexible and highly functional platform. These are positive things, but I'm inclined to agree with Kottke's position that ultimately, it's not a step forward for the Web.
Overall I liked Andreessen's term for all this: "living in Facebook's world". That is precisely what the Facebook platform is - a developer-friendly platform that mimics the Web (e.g. using FBML instead of HTML). It's attractive to developers, because so many people are using Facebook and its growth shows no signs of slowing. And developers and startups can make serious coin from the Facebook platform.
Conclusion
Facebook is an excellent web development platform - there is significant activity and innovation happening on it (which is why we're devoting a whole week to Facebook on R/WW). But in the end, the data isn't out in the open and developers must adhere to Facebook standards (FMBL, FQL) as well as some Web standards (REST APIs). So Facebook is not open, really.
I guess the real question is: does it matter? Well the Web's history gives us the answer to that. Yes it does matter, because when any company controls a closed, proprietary Internet platform - history shows that it ends in hubris (e.g. AOL, Microsoft). Facebook doesn't control social networking yet, far from it. But it's feasible that they will in future, if/when MySpace is vanquished.
What do you think - Facebook platform, good or bad?
3 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1461
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Wouldn't it be awesome to see a completely open, decentralised social network?
Why can't blogs will evolve further to become the ultimate social network? A blog can be the ultimate profile page. They can be hosted anywhere, and can be public or private.
The main feature of a "social network" is the ability to link to your friends. Something blogs and personal websites can do very easily. MyBlogLog is perhaps a precursor of what's to come.
Are there any features in Facebook that can't be replicated easily on blogs?
Interesting article...
No, it doesn't matter whether it's truly 'open' or not really IMHO. Nor is the 'good' vs 'bad' question relevant.
At the end of the day Facebook has to make decisions that are 'good' for the company, platform and the users and not worry too much about being labelled as a step backwards or forwards (who can really say what is backwards and forwards).
They have provided an API which at the moment seems to be very welcome by most people - the vast majority of other social networking sites don't even have APIs, so I don't understand the point about controlling a closed (can't say if it's closed, it's not as if there are many social networking 'open platforms' out there to compare with), proprietary (yes of course it's proprietary) platform.. only time will tell how good it really is and if people keep on finding it useful.
The FB API is not meant to be a replacement for the internet, so IMHO it shouldn't be judged as such..
Thank you so much for writing this blog post.
I have been wondering how long it would take before the elephant in the room was exposed.
How many companies are going to devout time and resources to building applications for a silo that use proprietary code that cannot be reused outside of the silo and that can only have a limited amount of possible users.
Its not surprising that their are rumors that Microsoft is wanting to buy them.
I also find it interesting that Marc Anderson would come out in anyway to support a closed silo that attempts to create its own version of the internet.
Currently most Social Networking sites create closed silos of user information and content that cannot be easily shared, reused, or redistributed outside of the network. FaceBook is a closed Silo. Myspace is a closed Silo.A Facebook member cannot export their Profile to Myspace. A Myspace member cannot export their profile to FaceBook. This is not because their is no technical way to export member profiles; its because both companies want to lock users into the Myspace and Facebook silos.
The Facebook "Open" platform is not only a gimmick it is also an Orwellian attempt to hi jack and redefine the term "Open" I think that may "Open" source proponents would agree that "Open" when it refers to software applications at the very least means inter operable. FaceBook is not interpretable. Myspace is not inter operable. From today onwards it is my hope that those reporting on and covering FaceBook will no longer use the term "Open" to describe the FaceBook platform.
The Data and content that members own cannot be easily exported out, or used with many other existing internet applications. The flow of data and information is one way. The Open platform is in fact open for developers, but closed to the rest of the internet. A one way vacum of application development that can never expand to any users base other than Facebook. FaceBook is a "Closed" platform much the way that Microsoft is a closed Platform. Develop for Microsoft and your application will be dependent on Microsoft technology and will not easily port to any other platfrom. Develop for FaceBook and your application will not work on any other platform. By developing applications for either you have limited the possible amount of networks that can distribute and use your application.
AOL at one time was also the darling of the internet. A big fat closed platform that attempted to lock in users. While AOL had quit a run; it was only a matter of time before users understood that AOL was not the internet. That there were millions, and millions of other networks to participate in. Once the hole of reality was opened and members realized that they were free to go beyond the AOL wall; the flow of members leaving the silo could not be stopped. It will be the same for FaceBook.
Now that we can all admit that FaceBook is not an "Open" platfrom; lets take a closer look at what a "Platform" is.
The arrogance of attempting to redefine and close in that which cannot be defined or captured can only lead to a steady fall and ultimate humiliation.
"And developers and startups can make serious coin from the Facebook platform." has ANYBODY actually accomplished this yet, or is this line still unsubstantiated hype? Also, in regards to open/closed, is it possible to get data OUT of Facebook using REST APIs? If so, then I'd say that is quite open.
I think there's a large amount of people who don't want their personal profiles indexed by Google or any other search engine. I always see "not indexed by Google" on a "bad" list when I don't think everyone sees that as a bad thing.
of course it is good... open or closed, facebook is what it is, but regardless should be given kudos for taking a MASSIVE step forward in what's available on the web.
what is "bad" is the fact that none of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, or any other major platform players has offered anything close to the Utopian offering Kottke suggests.
Facebook may not be everything we want or need, but it's a huge improvement on the previous generation of web services.
rather than tear them down for what they are doing, why not encourage the other players to compete better and offer alternatives.
- dave mcclure
http://500hats.typepad.com/
I don't have a full understanding of what is involved technically but still I ask if a platform could ever be truly open. Wouldn't that open them up to all kinds of security issues?
Unfortunately, Facebook will probably get more popular before it loses any steam. Look how long AOL lasted. MySpace is still king. Sure, the FB APIs are good for developers and good for FB users, but there is a limit to how many separate environments most people are willing to invest time in. I do hope that someone else comes out with an open competitor in the social space.
When you step back and look at it, Facebook really isn't that much different than Classmates (which everyone thought was really cool way back when, but once the novelty wore off, it became a dinosaur). These sites are great if you're in school and all of your best buds are on, but grown-ups should have learned by now from various sagas in internet history, the cell phones industry, etc., what it means to live in a walled garden.
This could be very good for corporate types because they need 'closed' systems. No big deal.
This is an intersting post - thanks.
As an avid facebook user, its one real success in my mind is that it has vanquished spam: there are no spam comments, I feel secure putting my real email address on the site because I know no bot will get it, etc.
It seems that there is a tradeoff between openness and spam. Until the spam problem can be solved, users such as myself will consider trading off openness.