Google’s OpenSocial has launched. You can read about it at the Google blog or the Google OpenSocial blog. You can also watch the “CampFire”, the pseudo-folksy release event that looks as if it was organized by Dubya’s press handlers. However, you’re probably sick of reading about OpenSocial, and as it is actually a pretty simple concept, you’re likely also sick of reading the same thing over and over. I’ll see what I can do to put an interesting spin on things.
Today, I’m going to talk a little bit about networks, Open Social and the problems open social can and can’t solve. I’m going to use the “situational relevance” frame, as it is particularly useful for this analysis.
First, let’s define the problem: Facebook is winning the social network wars. Even though Myspace has a trillion users, it is passe and Facebook is the new thing. As more people join Facebook, switching costs get lower, leading to a cascade effect. In terms of the diffusion of innovations curve, Facebook is now being heavily adopted by the “Early Majority”, indicating they’ve got a good one or two years left of substantial growth. In Google’s eyes, this is a major problem because it can’t really afford to “lose” at social networks for the next two years.
The OpenSocial value proposition goes something like this: Adopt opensocial, push your data into more places, and everyone wins. Consumers get their information needs answered in more places, and companies get their footprint in more places. And more or less, I agree – more relevant social services in more places is a win, but not in the Facebook-killing way Techcrunch expects.
Ego-centric social network sites all suffer from the “what’s next” problem. You log in, you find your friends, you connect, and then…what? Social networks solve this problem by being situationally relevant. On a college campus, where student real-world social networks are in unprecedented flux, Facebook is a social utility; the sheer amount of social information a student needs to manage as they mature their social networks makes Facebook invaluable. For the consultant or job seeker, LinkedIn maintains situational relevance by allowing one to activate weak ties in periods of need.
What happens when a social network is no longer situationally relevant? Use drops off. Social networks can combat this problem on a number of levels. Myspace dumped tons of exclusive media content into the site, so users would keep coming back once they negotiated their social networks. For non-SR users, Facebook developed the application platfom, betting that third party developers could make tools that would answer the varied needs of their userbase. Unfortunately, the gimmicky nature of the platform tools has undercut this approach somewhat, but this could very well change over time.
Try as they might, once ego-centric social networks lose situational relevance, its pretty much impossible for them to retain their status. Myspace users have exhausted the Myspace experience; they’ve done all they can do, they’ve found all the people they can find, so now its time to find a new context. We naturally migrate – we don’t hang out in the same bar or restaurant forever, so why would we assume behavior would be any different online?
Here’s where I get to my point: It’s all about networks. The coolest tools, the best exclusive media – these are only “fingers in the dam” to keep users in non-situationally relevant spaces. Networks naturally migrate from place to place – slowly at first, followed by a cascade as switching coss decrease – and no tools or content or affordances can really stop that.
OpenSocial, in essence, is a set of fingers to plug holes in the dam. It is a set of patches designed to keep users locked in to non-situationally relevant sites. Is it surprising that Myspace has signed on? Or any of the other secondary social networks? No. By injecting third-party content into sites, more needs will theoretically be answered, and users will be less likely to switch out. Unfortunately, this is not reality.
Ego-centric social networks are interesting because they can’t really compete with one another. Can you design a site that will steal Facebook’s core users? No. And is Facebook successful because it stole Myspace’s core users? No. A social network site must catch on with an unserved, influential demographic. In Facebook’s case, the demographic was college students who largely didn’t use Myspace and had never used Friendster or anything before that. Facebook found an unserved audience and accidentally became a giant. The next giant in the ego-centric space will do the same. Importantly, its not about the coolest features or the best content or cloning Facebook – it is about finding that unserved network.
Getting back to “its all about networks,” where OpenSocial fails is the proposition that by spreading content throughout the web, we’ll no longer want to cluster. That if Myspace or Bebo have just enough third-party widgets, Facebook will no longer matter. That couldn’t be further from the truth. We will naturally cluster in spaces, and companies are going to keep fighting tooth and nail to be the spaces where we cluster. The only way Google can win at ego-centric social networks is by creating one; but just as in real life, our social spaces are generally designed by people that “get us” – not the largest, most powerful company.
To put it bluntly, OpenSocial isn’t an anything “killer.” And OpenSocial isn’t going to save Myspace. What OpenSocial will do is add a layer of richness to applications, assuming that we don’t see another race-to-the-bottom like we saw over at Facebook (How long will it be before you can throw a sheep at your boss in LinkedIn?). Intelligent, well-curated third party apps will make sites better, but Google can’t really take credit for that. Ultimately, OpenSocial will not significantly impact Facebook and other “central” (in the network sense) sites, other than forcing the “media dialogue” ball into their court. And as Erick Schoenfeld (a voice of clarity on Techcrunch) puts it, Facebook could just adopt and snuff Google’s attempts to drive this media wedge. But frankly, it doesn’t really matter. No matter what Google does, Facebook is going to succesfully ride Roger’s S-Curve for the next couple years.
After that? Another thing will be popular, and it won’t be Facebook and I guarantee it won’t be Google. But it could be you. :)
I think I agree with what you say here… but it leads me to a conclusion that I disagree with: social networking web services popularity is fad-like.
This doesn’t sit right with me because it hasn’t been true for other pieces of the applications layer in the stack that actually matter… so why is it true in this instance. For example, I’ve been using MS office products for 12+ years. I suspect the office suite will be disrupted by innovative technology in future, but it will not be a fad mentality that will lead to their eventual downfall; instead, it will be a substantial technology paradigm shift (such as persistently connected computers that tied to cloud applications and data storage)… Do you feel that social networking web services are essentially fads, and their popularity rises and falls independent of technological paradigm shifts?
The problem with “fad” is that its pejorative. I don’t think that social networking is a fad – i.e. we’re not going back to pre-SNS, but you know that – but I think that we’re inherently going to see migration and interest shifting – not exclusive lock-in and universal agreement on a single place.
The problem SNS faces, as opposed to an office suite, is that the value comes from the network, as opposed to “technological” value. It’s arguably easier to create a SNS using OS tools than it is to build a new office suite. Furthermore, the office suite is “locked in” – structural forces such as format, familiarity and your boss’s expectations make it quite difficult to switch.
Switching cost in a SNS is the loss of your network. Theoretically, it’s a big cost, but once people have exhausted the site they’re on, its often refreshing. This is what makes ego-centric SNS unique – the experience is tied to identity that we’re open to change. Moving to a new SNS isn’t like adopting a new OS – its playing the game all over again, this time situating yourself in a more relevant (and cool) place than the service you joined 2 or 3 years ago.
What’s interesting is that for cascades to start, only a small percentage of the users have to go through that dialogue. Once a base gets well-seeded at a new site, they will encourage others to join. And as more join, social pressure and awareness mounts, to the point where it’s not even a “switch” so much as it is a normative behavior.
As a point of a comparison, consider a social-object-centric network such as Flickr. Its much harder to switch between photo-sharing sites because of the high switching costs in uploading, re-labeling, etc. To a certain extent, this susceptibility to fad is unique for ego-centric networks.
I cannot tell you how refreshing that was to read. Sometimes I feel like the media and bloggers at large are just pawns in the Facebook and Google game. There is a paradigm shift taking place, but it is not to the social graph as a destination – that is only a part of it. Relevance is the keyword in your article – whatever our destination is, it must be relevant or else it will be a fad. The next innovation will occur when social networking, apps, and real life converge. With any luck, my team will be there to introduce it to the world…
Great post Fred.
Extending an app like ‘Where I’ve Been’ to LinkedIn could be situationally relevant and useful, but the idea that sheep throwing could be extended across LinkedIn or other non-situationally relevant SNS’s is a pretty ugly prospect.
I’m not sure if the details are available yet but I hope OpenSocial includes tools for participating SNS’s to control and manage what applications are accessible to their members.
– Tim
The most important sentences in your piece are these. “Ego-centric social network sites all suffer from the “what’s next” problem. You log in, you find your friends, you connect, and then…what?”
And the answer is, you communicate. Private messaging, publishing and group discussion. These are exactly the areas that Facebook (and LinkdIn) is poor at. And these are the functions that a competitor can use to steal members.
What’s interesting is whether it’s possible to build rich function gadgets that actually answer this need on top of either the FB API or on top of OpenSocial. I’m not yet convinced that this is even possible.
This is why I still consider Google Groups and Yahoogroups to be more important than Facebook or MySpace. And why Twitter is more interesting than Plaxo. It’s not about collecting contacts. It’s about enabling new forms of communication.
Jbond – I agree. I wrote a little bit about that in a post entitled Social Software and Community Capital