The Google-lead initiative called OpenSocial is all the buzz this week with anyone interested in online innovation, but beyond all the enthusiasm there are a number of questions that ought to be asked more visibly than they have been so far.
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.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: OpenSocial: Three Big Concerns.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1746
The industry has been all abuzz over Open Social. EVERYONE seems to be viewing this as a showdown between Google--Friends and Facebook (and Microsoft). It isn't! Facebook is a network of users. People are on Facebook because their friends are Read More
This week the Web development community has been buzzing as details were released about an new widget API called Google OpenSocial. Google officially launched OpenSocial and provided this video to further explain its actions. I have been trying to get ... Read More
Our network blog AltSearchEngines reports that Google has around 90% search engine market share in France (well, 89.98% to be exact!). The next biggest is Yahoo ! (3.17%), followed by MSN (2.33%). Over the past year, between August 2006 and... Read More
Last week was all about OpenSocial, Google's project that will tie together Google, MySpace and many other social networks in a common developer environment. The goal: one common set of code to create widgets from. This strikes at the very... Read More
Today at the Defrag Conference, Kevin Marks from Google gave a presentation on OpenSocial. Before working at Google, Kevin was Principal Engineer at Technorati. He's also well known as one of the founders of microformats. Kevin's speech wasn't on the... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Marshall, here is my take on your concerns.
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.
Posted by: Krish | November 2, 2007 1:41 AMIn my opinion, APIs should not be antinomic to the Semantic Web, on the contrary, both data and functions should be mixed together, forming objets and going towards what I call the "Object Oriented Web". I just outlined the idea here:
http://blog.kindalab.com/2007/11/02/the-object-oriented-web/
Posted by: Manuel Vila | November 2, 2007 3:33 AMMarshall - you are a genius as usual. The issues you raise are exactly right. This is a step in a good direction - but it is not the solution.
My thoughts:
Posted by: Chris Saad | November 2, 2007 3:45 AMhttp://blog.engagd.com/2007/11/3-questions-about-opensocial.html
I am still backing Facebook on this battle all the way.
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.
Posted by: JohnofScribblesheet | November 2, 2007 4:30 AM"...it may have been more accurate to call this 'OpenWidget' - though the press wouldn't have been as good."
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!"
Posted by: Roger Benningfield | November 2, 2007 5:18 AMWidgetization is a bad move for the industry. It is good at the level of disconnected simple functions - not for serious function that requires seamless integration.
Widgetization scatters the already segmented life of a user.
However, I think Google is exercising leadership here, but MySpace hopefully is not exercising control.
Posted by: Joseph Pally | November 2, 2007 6:21 AMFrom an appvertising perspective, creating branded widgets that provide service rather than noise about a brand, this is a great move forward - my only fear is the them and us stance with the Facebook platform and reading between the lines one suspects Google wanted Facebook to sign up to open social, El Zukerberg declined and Microsoft the aging Uncle at the party trying to kiss the girls half his age made a better offer.
Posted by: Adam Martin {Fat Man} | November 2, 2007 6:58 AMMarshall
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/
Posted by: Jeremiah Owyang | November 2, 2007 7:02 AMQuite frankly, if this all turns up being a simple widget framework to transparently post crap between networks, it's going to be a massive let down.
"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.
Posted by: mamorim | November 2, 2007 8:00 AMIMHO this goes along the lines of what was called SocialStream, Google's profile aggregator.
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.
Posted by: Danilo | November 2, 2007 8:06 AMIt seems to me that all three of these "concerns" are the type of thing that only bloggers would care about. They're worried that Google is going to control programs created by Google? Oh noes, teh horror! Can't be having a company control their own software! Might lead to Capitalism! As for "lack of cross-site identity", that's really only something that never-been-kissed morons care about. If Digg has shown us ANYTHING, it's that so-called "social" sites are inevitably ruined by a handful of people who have absolutely no lives, and thus spend all their time trying to monopolize whatever board they're currently obsessed with. (Pizzler and MrBabyMan, anyone?) As for his utterly insane comments about "Large Corporations" and their innate inability to "be hip": Yeah, because Apple certainly has never been able to create hip new trends, right? And Google itself certainly isn't hip and trendy with the Geek crowd. And You Tube certainly isn't a multi-billion dollar corporation. *eyes rolled*
Posted by: Maven | November 2, 2007 8:44 AMNo it doesn't aggregate the data from the different services, it only provides the info from the container
Check out Orkut Sandbox screenshots at -
Posted by: Rohit Rai | November 2, 2007 8:51 AMhttp://mytechrantings.blogspot.com/2007/11/orkut-sandbox-initial-looks.html
The containers are in control, BUT, if they don't give over enough to the app, it won't run. So there is a bit of a negotiation there.
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/
Posted by: Bob Warfield | November 2, 2007 8:55 AMtime will tell
Posted by: carlity | November 2, 2007 9:06 AMHello Guys/Girls, if there are any developers on here who are excited about getting their hands on the OpenSocial APIs (I know I am!), I have made a website/forum for discussion, would be cool to get a few active members to get the website going http://www.osocial.co.uk/forum/
Posted by: Dawson | November 2, 2007 9:21 AMLike so many other things this is not good or bad. What I don't like about it is that it leave it open for abuse.
It also puts more control in fewer hands, which is one thing I am never excited about.
Posted by: innkeeper | November 2, 2007 9:32 AMhow -- technologically speaking -- will this work in order to share personal profile data and/or applications between, say: http://match.com and http://dontdatehimgirl.com ?
Posted by: nmw | November 2, 2007 9:36 AMHey, it sounds good :)
Posted by: iYiZ | November 2, 2007 9:47 AMIt 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.
To answer your first question:
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:
Posted by: Dennison Uy - Graphic Designer | November 2, 2007 9:49 AMhttp://blog.codesignstudios.com/2007/11/02/first-look-at-the-opensocial-api/
People are getting frustrated with these social information silos. Open Social could be the next step. I just really hope they embrace semantic web & microformats. Otherwise, I could see wordpress or another publishing platform making a run in a year or two. Everyone is going to want their own domain, everyone, it will be like real estate.
Posted by: Michael Lambie | November 2, 2007 10:01 AMTug it not, you guys. It's ice on baby and moving fast.
Posted by: Tuggit knot | November 2, 2007 10:06 AMThe hip way and you be in the dark if knife hits knot.
Who pooped in your cereal this morning? I'm thinking all of that Facebook cheer-leading has created an emotional investment on RWW's part that is now feeling threatened.
Posted by: Brock | November 2, 2007 10:10 AMAs the Executive Director of the newly-formed, neutral party, third-person, non-profit Relationship Networking Industry Association (RNIA), we are extremely interested in forwarding such open standards for the industry, however, agree with the trepidation one gets from seeing a consortium of players gathering independently to set such a standard.
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.
Posted by: Adam J. Kovitz | November 2, 2007 10:24 AMI hereby rename "OpenSocial" to "GoogleGadgets". There. Doesn't that feel better? And it avoids all the confusion created by the words Open and Social.
Posted by: Julian Bond | November 2, 2007 10:44 AMWhen I first heard Open Social announced it seemed like a very slanted proposition. Google I think rightly views these closed-garden social platforms as a threat to their search-centric view of the web and Open Social may be their response.
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!
Posted by: Marshall Clark | November 2, 2007 11:15 AMNice post Marshall. We echo some of your concerns. We are going to use this in a future roll-out of our product but will be watching cautiously. Check out our thoughts here:
http://tn20.com/?p=48
Posted by: Jason Rothbart | November 2, 2007 12:37 PMI think those are valid concerns.
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.
Posted by: Rune | November 2, 2007 12:37 PMOh well maybe in another 7 years it will come true.
I think they should rename this project from OpenSocial to:
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 :-)
Posted by: Aziz | November 2, 2007 1:04 PMYour concerns are valid Marshall.
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/
Posted by: Mojo | November 2, 2007 1:52 PMHi Marshall,
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
Posted by: Ted Rheingold | November 3, 2007 1:13 PMI'm really concerned about Google's increasing dominance.
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.
Posted by: corinth | November 10, 2007 9:10 AMxwerv yrdv bwsql nzrcyw vbne flkyncaso wdxfova
Posted by: kqlxhbmv vgnluhx | November 15, 2007 6:49 AMxwerv yrdv bwsql nzrcyw vbne flkyncaso wdxfova
Posted by: kqlxhbmv vgnluhx | November 15, 2007 6:58 AMCool site. Thank you!!!
Posted by: meridia online | November 16, 2007 5:05 PMGood site. Thank you:-)
Posted by: cheap fioricet | November 19, 2007 5:56 PMGood site. Thank you:-)
Posted by: cheap fioricet | November 19, 2007 5:58 PMCool site. Thanks!!!
Posted by: Order Ultram | November 20, 2007 5:35 PM