Fred StutzmanThoughts about information, social networks, and privacy

It’s likely this is the umpteenth article you’ve read about Google’s OpenSocial initiative, so I’m going to see if I can’t make this one worth your while.

First – what is OpenSocial? Briefly, OpenSocial is a set of Google-defined API’s and methods for passing “social” information between two applications. Therefore, one application is the “datastore” and another is the “view.” These applications interact through (and are limited by) methods defined in the OpenSocial API. Notably, these API’s are platform agnostic – while they are built on Google’s datastore, implementers are not limited to Google’s datastore.

Why does it matter? The good, non-fluffy side of Web 2.0 is fueled by mashups and API’s. The problem with API’s is that they’re inconsistent, write once, etc. Google is attempting to end-around one-off social API’s by creating their own, with the false guise of standardization.

But wait, this can’t be the first “open” Social API, can it? No – there have been a number of attempts at creating standardized wrappers for social. FOAF is a notable example, XFN another. Like Google’s initiative, none of these are “standards” in the IETF or W3C sense. Seizing on its place in the market, its powerful, hegemonic voice and the cadre of willing followers, Google’s opensocial is a super-standard – not sanctified by any body other than the sheer volume of developers who will start playing with it.

So isn’t Google just creating a new set of problems? Yes and no. Social information transfer should be standardized, but the standard bodies (and interested parties) have simply been too slow to create and approve standards. It’s the end of 2007 – we’ve been using SNS for years now, so there’s no excuse. Of course, these social systems need a standard and mode of integration to be useful, and Google is providing both. This is a path towards standardization, and it would be useful if Google did carry through on a community-supported standard. The standardized passing of social information is extremely valuable, and third-parties need the support of standards bodies to justify investment of significant resources. Until then, everyone is at Google’s whim, which is a tenuous business proposition.

So what is Google really trying to do? By placing “opensocial” in the open, Google is demystifying how it will interconnect its properties. This is as important strategic move; Google contains so much personal information about all of us that openness will benefit the company when Google decides to interconnect. First, Google will be a follower – the interconnections will be old news, and precedented throughout the web. Second, bloggers and information purveyors will be able to make Google’s case – look at the effort I’m taking to explain OpenSocial right now. When Google interconnects I’ll just point to this article and tell you it’s been coming for months or years now. The techno-elite may be ok with having the walls broken down between Google’s services, but on the open web, it’s going to be traumatic. Google is preparing for this with OpenSocial.

It’s larger than platform interconnectivity and framing, however. By getting developer buy-in and deploying these “standards”, Google’s also developing bankable data sharing architecture between countless third-parties. But Google doesn’t need to be in the middle, you say. Of course not…but knowing Google, they will find a way to incentivize buy in, with some really cool innovation. I can already see the OpenSocial maps parser or something like that. Google will find ways to make themselves centric in this scheme – they always do. And that’s not evil – that’s just a corporation making a strategic business move to collect its primary resource: your data.

I concede that opensocial is sorely needed and is a long time coming. We need better ways of interconnecting – and good, earnest people have been working on this problem for years. Closed platforms like Facebook’s are very Web 2.0, but global interconnection is whatever is after Web 2.0. It’s unfortunate that Google, rather than a standards body, is at the center, but perhaps this will outline a standard way forward. Make no mistake – it is Google’s powerful voice that makes them capable of declaring such “standards”, but OpenSocial is really just Google’s take on the matter. Of course, Google is more equal than others, so this is far from the last you’ll hear on the matter.

Update: I like Dave Weiner’s take. “Standards devised by one tech company whose main purpose is to undermine another tech company, usually don’t work. In this case it’s Google trying to undermine Facebook. And I don’t think it’s going to work.” Well put.

Tags: google, opensocial

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 31st, 2007 at 9:07 am and is filed under Noticed, Software. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.