Facebook is the web application Microsoft should have built

Yesterday at an event called f8, Facebook launched their new “platform” which enables third party companies to integrate applications right inside of Facebook. Mashable has a pretty good overview of thirty such applications. Everything about the Facebook Platform seems fairly ballsy, but you can’t argue with statistics like these:

Facebook is growing 3% per week, which is 100,000 new users per day.
50% of registered users come back to the site every day.
Facebook is generating more than 40 billion page views per month. That’s 50 pages per user every day.
6th most trafficked site in the U.S. More page views than eBay. Says they are targeting Google next.

In short, there’s no better place for such a platform to be built than on Facebook.

The last point above, as reported by Michael Arrington, is particularly interesting. I suspect there are millions of people around the world right now who think that Google is the Internet. Increasingly though, you might say the same thing about Facebook. If their user growth continues, and the Platform takes off, Facebook might become the new on-ramp to the web. No need to go anywhere else when all your friends (and family, colleagues, etc) and apps (webmail, shopping, stocks, etc) are in one place.

Not only is the name “Facebook Platform” incredibly obvious, it’s also very astute. Facebook is no longer just a social networking site. It really is becoming a social operating system, as some have called it.

What does this have to do with Microsoft?

Microsoft is a platform company, plain and simple. Think of a Microsoft product – chances are it’ll be a platform product. Windows, Office, SharePoint, .NET, Xbox, etc. Microsoft is pretty good at laying the foundation and helping others build on top (which only serves to make their platform all the more important).

The Facebook Platform sounds very much like something Microsoft would build. To see what I mean, read this sentence:

Facebook is a platform that provides a common abstraction of the infrastructure and guts of a system, allowing third parties to build interesting and useful applications on top.

Now replace Facebook with Windows. Or Office. Or .NET. See what I mean? It still makes sense. Facebook is very much taking a page from the Microsoft playbook with Platform. I think it’s brilliant. And I think Microsoft should have done it a long time ago.

But they didn’t. I think they are moving in the right direction with Windows Live, but it sure is taking a while. Perhaps Colin is right…maybe Microsoft should just buy Facebook. I don’t think it’ll happen though.

At least Microsoft isn’t totally out to lunch on this – they are partnering with Facebook to integrate Popfly.

Is Facebook the king of photo sites?

I use Flickr to host my photos and I love it. I haven’t had any problems with the site, and I’ve been a happily paying customer for a couple years now. There are tons of photo sharing sites available though, and it seems Flickr is far from being the clear winner, despite having lots of positive brand recognition.

In fact, I think Facebook is probably the largest photo sharing site on the web.

Here’s what I have been able to find:

Flickr has just over 500 million photos (as of 5/15/2007).
SmugMug has over 140 million photos (as of 3/30/2007).
Webshots has just under 500 million photos (as of today).
Fotolog has over 240 million photos (as of today).
Photobucket has over 2.8 billion images (as of today).
Facebook has 1.7 billion photos (as of yesterday).

Notice how for Photobucket I said “images” – that’s because they host a lot of icons, graphics, and other kinds of items that aren’t really photos. There are a bunch of other sites that fall into that category as well. Another site that probably should be on the list is Zooomr, but I couldn’t find any stats for them. I suspect they are somewhere between SmugMug and Flickr.

Clearly, based on the number of photos stored, Facebook is the winner. They have incredible growth too (over 60 million photos added per week) as outlined in yesterday’s post. Certainly just hosting the most photos doesn’t make one site better than another, but it is still pretty interesting to compare. SmugMug’s Don MacAskill is always talking about speed and performance, and for good reason – SmugMug is the clear winner in terms of load times. There are a lot of other metrics that could be used to compare sites.

The one disadvantage Facebook has (depending on how you look at it) is that all the photos are behind their walled garden. Otherwise, you could almost consider them a photo sharing site instead of a social networking site!

For me, the most interesting thing is the total number of photos across all these sites – over three billion ignoring Photobucket, just from the sites I listed. I find it unlikely that there are many duplicates (ie, most users don’t post photos to multiple sites), so the number is particularly astounding.

Just imagine what the first photographers back in the 1800s would think of this photo sharing craziness!

UPDATE: Turns out my estimate for Zooomr was horribly off the mark. Don points out in the comments that they have 1 million photos – and that getting to the million mark is a big deal (Thanks Don for the info). I think I guessed so high because of the many TechCrunch posts covering Zooomr! Oh well.

The Gatekeepers of Privacy

As you know, I don’t worry that much about online privacy. In fact, I think it’s a huge waste of time to be overly concerned about privacy on the web. I always keep two things in mind:

There is no such thing as private information.
If someone looks at information online and draws a negative impression about me, I have larger problems than privacy to worry about.

So far my strategy has been working fairly well. To my knowledge I haven’t missed out on any opportunities because of information about me found on the web – quite the opposite in fact.

For some reason though, I am fascinated by the worries and concerns of others when it comes to information privacy. And believe, me there are a lot of worriers out there. So many, it seems, that Global TV‘s troubleshooter looked at the security of Facebook and other popular websites last night (unfortunately they haven’t full embraced the new web, and the video is not available on their site).

They contacted a local “hacking” firm, and asked them to review Facebook, Gmail, and other popular sites. The gentleman they spoke to couldn’t have been more cliché – long hair, super geeky, could be mistaken for a girl, you know the type. Anyway, they apparently spent over 30 hours trying to “hack” into Facebook and couldn’t get in. I just shook my head through all of this. They deemed Facebook “very secure”. Well, problem solved I guess, haha!

Then they spoke to a professor from the UofA (if I remember correctly) who said that living under the assumption that your information is safe is a dangerous thing to do. Finally someone smart! The segment then ended with the anchors asking each other if they were on Facebook (they aren’t, unfortunately). Oh and the suggestion that you should read the privacy policy of every site you visit (yeah, cuz that’s going to happen).

It doesn’t matter how secure Facebook is. Privacy is not about technology. If someone wants to find out something about you, they will. Social engineering, dumpster diving, and many other techniques are far more effective than trying to hack into a site like Facebook. More importantly, there’s no need to – just create your own Facebook account! Chances are, the person you’re interested in hasn’t adjusted their privacy settings anyway.

For its part, Facebook follows two core principles:

You should have control over your personal information.
You should have access to the information others want to share.

A respectable policy, no doubt. Here’s the problem though. Let’s say I give access to certain information only to my brother. No one else (in theory) can see it, right? Wrong. I can give my brother access to the information, but I can’t restrict him from doing something with it.

Technology is just a tool. People are the gatekeepers of privacy.

Why the Facebook ban will be lifted within two years

According to the Globe and Mail, government employees in Ontario have been banned from accessing Facebook. Kristen at Mashable points out that YouTube, online poker, and various other sites are also banned. And Mark Evans points to this story about TD Bank banning Facebook during business hours. There are undoubtedly many other major organizations that have banned access to Facebook and other social networking sites.

I think these bans are ridiculous. And Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty makes it easy to understand why:

“I think Facebook is predominantly a social network. It has its value, but we just don’t really see how it adds value to work that you do in the workplace.”

You sir, Mr. McGuinty, are an idiot.

When you don’t understand something, the correct course of action is to learn about it. Admit you don’t know something, and then find out what it is that you don’t know!

The idea that work exists only between the hours of 9 to 5, and only in your place of business, is dead. Welcome to the 21st century. Human behaviour has changed, and it’s time that the workplace caught up.

I am reminded of something Leonard Brody said yesterday (I am paraphrasing here):

People often say “oh email, instant messaging, there’s too much information, I can’t take it!” Well, you’re all liars. You thrive on more.

It’s true. Employees today can be incredibly productive, so long as their employers make it possible. Banning them from something like Facebook isn’t going to help. There are no doubt many people working for the Ontario government who are part of an older generation, one that isn’t trained to be connected all the time. Perhaps banning Facebook won’t affect them much.

The ban sets a dangerous precedent, however. The next generation of workers the government hires simply won’t stand for it. They are fundamentally different, wired to be connected 24/7. To them, Facebook is both entertainment and work. It’s a tool, not a time-waster. They’ll use it to connect with friends, and they’ll use it to connect with colleagues. Banning Facebook for these workers will definitely hinder their productivity.

Don’t be surprised to read about the Ontario government reversing this decision sometime in the next two years. I don’t think they’ll have any other choice.

Read: Mashable

Thoughts on the MySpace Presidential Primary

TechCrunch posted yesterday that MySpace is going to be holding a presidential primary on January 1st and 2nd, 2008, which is before any of the official state primaries. Every member will be asked to vote for their favorite candidate. Michael Arrington makes a good point about why this should be done on Facebook instead:

Facebook’s user accounts are each tied to an email address or cell phone, resulting in far fewer fake or duplicate accounts. Given the low quality of the MySpace user base (multiple accounts, no identity check, etc.) it would be relatively easy for a campaign to create a significant number of fake accounts to stuff the ballot box in their favor. Facebook can also tie their users to U.S. residency much easier than MySpace.

I would add another reason: Facebook is not owned by News Corporation! Not that I would expect Facebook to be completely impartial, but more so than the owner of Fox News.

I don’t think anyone is going to take the results very seriously, but I like the idea regardless. Anything that might make politics more relevant to the younger generations is worth trying. So far Barack Obama has a massive lead in terms of the number of friends he has, but expect the other candidates to catch up.

Read: TechCrunch

Hey Facebook – integrate Twitter!

Dear Facebook,

You’re a great website, and I love you. In fact, I spend far more time with you than I should. As a result, I have started to notice your wrinkles. You know, the little things that stick out. Sometimes they are endearing, other times they are annoying.

The way you change my status updates is annoying.

Why must you change the point of view of my updates? Stop it, please. You’re cramping my creative style with your darn status update restrictions.

Earlier tonight I sent the following status update:

Lately I check Facebook for new stuff before I check my blog for new comments. Sad.

You butchered it. You converted my perfectly good update to:

Mack is lately he check Facebook for new stuff before he check his blog for new comments. Sad.

What the hell is that?! The way you ruined a perfectly good update is what’s sad. And I’m not the only one who feels this way. I mean, the over 6600 people in this group clearly agree with me.

You should take a page out of your younger cousin‘s playbook*. Better yet, integrate! I mean, Twitter is clearly ahead of you in the status updates department. You know that status update of mine that you butchered? Twitter accepted it just fine. And Twitter even gave me a permalink!

Please Facebook, think about it. I’d ask you to add status updating to your API as well, but let’s go one step at a time. The first step is simple: stop screwing with my status updates.

Your Friend,

Mack

* – younger cousin in the great family of Web 2.0 applications…

Why is Facebook so addicting?

For those of you who use Facebook this will come as no surprise: I’m addicted. I don’t know what it is about the site, but something has me completely hooked. Lately when I think social networking, I think Facebook – it seems to me they have found the magic formula. And I really want to understand what that formula is.

Here are a few “magic ingredients” that I have come up with:

Human Connection. I think it’s human nature to want to be connected to other humans. Obviously, this is the core of Facebook’s product. Sure you can share links and write notes and such, but the core idea is connecting with other people, and everything seems to be designed with this in mind (you can tag people in photos, notes, etc.)
User Interface. With the exception of the ugly banner on the left side, the site is clean and the layout is mostly consistent. I think for the same reason people love Google’s simple front page, people love Facebook’s simple interface.
News Feed. Aside from being an efficient way to display information, the news feed makes logging into the site many times a day worthwhile. There’s always something new to see. Try to imagine Facebook without the news feed…it’s hard isn’t it? This is a key feature.
Almost Live Casual Communication. I think Facebook is great for communication that falls somewhere in between instant messaging and email. Like a simple “hey how’s it going” that doesn’t require an immediate response, nor an entire email message (which would appear in your inbox alongside important messages and spam). The wall is definitely another key feature.

When they first decided to open the site up to everyone, expanding away from their original audience of college students, I wasn’t sure if it would work out. I figured it might make Facebook seem less attractive. Turns out my suspicions were wrong. Facebook is definitely going mainstream.

I’ll think about this some more, but what you do think – why is Facebook so addicting?

Oh, and if we’re not friends on Facebook yet, add me! Here’s my profile.

Did Facebook miss the boat?

That’s the question that Robert Young asks over at GigaOM today. Facebook apparently turned down many potential suitors last year, deciding to go it alone. Was that a good decision or a bad one? Robert does a good job of explaining that if you ignore the financial side of things, it looks like it was a good decision:

So given such positives, one might conclude that Facebook did in fact make the right decision not to sell. as momentum and value creation certainly seems to be in their favor.

Overall traffic is up, loyalty and usage stats are high, things look good. The problem is that advertising on Facebook appears to be a win-lose situation – good for Facebook, bad for the advertisers. Which means Facebook is going to have trouble earning revenue.

My personal opinion is that Facebook missed the boat, but that they’ll likely get another shot. The product has incredible value – they are just doing a really shoddy job of extracting it. It’s only a matter of time before they need to be rescued, by Yahoo! or another big player. Whether the rescuer will fare better at extracting value from Facebook is another story.

I’d be quite happy if Yahoo! purchased Facebook, and added support for del.icio.us and Flickr. I don’t upload photos to Facebook because I use Flickr, and I don’t use the share feature at Facebook, because I use del.icio.us. I’d still like to be able to share this stuff with my friends though.

(Another thing: all three products – del.icio.us, Facebook, and Flickr – have a clean and efficient design. That alone should be reason enough to make them play nicely together!)

Read: GigaOM

Why does classmates.com advertise on Facebook?

I have been spending far too much time on Facebook lately, so I couldn’t help but notice the vertical banner ads for classmates.com that appear on the site. And I can’t figure out why they bother. I mean, I signed up for classmates.com probably six years ago, and never visited the site again.

Well until this week, when I went back to see if it still sucked (so I suppose you could argue their advertisement worked to an extent). And yes, it does still suck. I understand why there are two gas stations on every corner, and why you can usually find a Wendy’s or Burger King wherever there is a McDonald’s. They have really similar offerings. Is this the case with Facebook and classmates.com? I don’t think so.

Facebook and classmates.com just might be the best examples of Web 2.0 and Web 1.0, respectively.

They are almost polar opposites. Facebook is clean and fast. Classmates.com pages are slower and cluttered. Facebook is entirely free, while classmates.com is primarily a premium service. Facebook has features like photos, blogs, and mobile support. Classmates.com has message boards and biographies. Facebook is new and hip, classmates.com is old and tired.

It seems to me that at their core, the two services serve the same purpose: connecting people with friends (and especially classmates). In my opinion, Facebook does a much better job. It’s easier, and costs nothing. Classmates.com appears to be quite successful though, so I wonder if people use the two in different ways.

If they are in fact used for the same purpose, then I wonder if advertising on Facebook is at all effective for classmates.com. I can’t imagine it would be, but perhaps I’m missing something here.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: