Tech & VC 31 Oct 2007 08:49 am
End-Comsumer Value of OpenSocial?
I should start by saying the openness junkie and information architecture geek in me is absolutely giddy over the outlines I’ve read about the OpenSocial API.
But, the HCI/User-Experience geek in me is skeptical. The title of this post says it all: what’s the value of OpenSocial to the end-consumer? If I can play Scrabulous on Facebook, why should I (as an end-consumer) be excited that developers can easily offer me the ability to play Scrabulous on Orkut, Hi5, LinkedIn, etc…? I’m happy with Scrabulous on Facebook. I don’t need to play it on another social network.
Maybe the value to the end-consumer will become more obvious as more details are released next week.
[Side Note: yes, OpenSocial already has a wikipedia entry. It was created today at 8:52am. Brilliant.]
5 Responses to “End-Comsumer Value of OpenSocial?”
on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:39 am 1.Nate Westheimer said …
I think the exciting part (beyond the app portability, which really is exciting) is the possibility that OpenSocial will have clever integration with OpenID and OAuth and begin the process of social graph portability. It’s the “Social Open” which is more exciting than the “Open Social”, if you will.
on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:19 am 2.Tony Stubblebine said …
The benefit would be if Scrabulous implemented the new API and end users who don’t use Scrabulous were able to play. The widget part of the OpenSocial API seems like it’s going to be great for end users because it’ll encourage more widget developers.
Totally agree that there are major HCI issues with portable social networks/identification. Not sure how those are going to get fixed and how long that will take.
on 31 Oct 2007 at 11:12 pm 3.Kevin Ambrosini said …
I believe this type of development potentially unlocks all of the promised value of “openness” to the end-user, and increases the value of any community one is a part of. As a member of a community (social or otherwise), its value to me is connecting me to those with similar interests. In a sense, I prefer that community stay closed. However, it is my applications (and often my content that goes along with them) that I want to be open across all platforms**. To me, this helps simplify the unorganized/fragmented web 2.0 where one user’s online “life” is full of multiple social networks…and is the first step toward fulfilling the promises of portable identity (http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2007/09/social_networks_go_or_nogo_for.html), single sign-on (http://openid.net/) and universal reputation (http://www.fredcavazza.net/2006/11/19/toward-a-web-30/), as user’s have not only multiple social networks, but also many different communication platforms (twitter, tumblr, IM, gmail, y! mail), online retailers (amazon, ebay, best buy), payment processors (paypal, google checkout), music discovery apps (last.fm, Pandora, ilike), etc. etc.
“If I can play Scrabulous on Facebook, why should I (as an end-consumer) be excited that developers can easily offer me the ability to play Scrabulous on Orkut, Hi5, LinkedIn, etc…? I’m happy with Scrabulous on Facebook. I don’t need to play it on another social network.”
Because I want to bring many applications that interest me across my different communities. I like watching tv at home with my girlfriend. I also like watching tv (college football) at a bar with my buddies. And watching tv at work with my co-workers (yes, we have a chill office environment). I like spending time in different social environments, but certain applications are interesting to me across them all (especially 2.0 applications that hold my ugc).
You may be happy with Scrabulous on Facebook…today. But what if you’re not happy with Facebook? Does that mean you shouldn’t be happy with (or be able to play) Scrabulous either?
** I hesitate calling Facebook or others a platform because, while it technically may be, it causes many to compare the social network phenomena to what we saw in computing and broadcast television. What’s great about the internet is that we don’t need to allow one player that much control…and OpenSocial is another demonstration of that (although I agree with the above points in regard to Google’s potential control here). Further, with all this talk of Facebook being the next Microsoft, doesn’t it make you think Microsoft already owns the true Internet platform (the browser)?
-Kevin
on 01 Nov 2007 at 6:57 pm 4.Hugh Lang said …
I have plenty of respect for Google technology and brilliance. However, I’ve seen many consortiums in the past 20 years of the business trying to unseat the leader in the field. And can you think of a success story? Not sure what to expect here.
Do social network participants really want openness across networks? Unfortunately, I have plenty of experience in the club world. Once upon a time, I owned a nightclub myself. If a superclub or uber-authority were to provide a way for nightlife-goers to interact across a city or the world, it wouldn’t be that cool.
on 01 Nov 2007 at 8:35 pm 5.Jonathan Marcus said …
Wrong perspective. The end-user benefits because companies can afford to write once and distribute on multiple networks, thereby making the entire development process feasible. The Friendster, Hi5, Bebo and Facebook user bases are very different – Friendster users are unlikely also Bebo users; social networks splinter because of age, geography, etc. And, they all have entirely different social graphs, a fact that unlikely to change soon.