Open Social
October 31st, 2007Google has launched a social network platform to encompass all social network platforms. Besides the rather meta-meta nature of this play, it’s fascinating to watch the interplay between Google and Microsoft here:
Early October: Ballmer trashes social networks like Facebook as being “fadish”.
A few weeks later: Microsoft invests in Facebook for a ginormous valuation, beating out Google. This gives the appearance that Ballmer was trashing Facebook as a ploy — to lure Google into believing that Microsoft was only mildly interested in Facebook.
Now Google’s announcement. This raises several questions:
- Did Google lure Microsoft into over-bidding for Facebook? (The WSJ already published an article discussing the implications of the inflated valuation on stock options, i.e. Facebook’s diminished ability to use equity to lure top-notch talent.)
- Was Open Social a part of the discussions between Facebook and Google? Did Facebook relent for fear of becoming a share-cropper, i.e. an app on top of a platform, just like apps live on its platform? (Remember, whoever successfully creates the most meta platform wins.)
- And/or, was the loss of Facebook a huge blow to Google’s plans for Open Social?
Fascinating stuff. It does strike me that Google’s play seems incomplete without the big-gorilla Facebook. Does this now become The Law of Duality in action?
October 31st, 2007 at 11:08 am
Cool, so now I’ll be able to turn my friends into zombies on linkedin too! I agree that platforms are important but I’ve yet to see a really useful addon on facebook. It seems to me that for social networking apps the key part is the relationships and the personal information. Managing this is the key, not the extra stuff. If the platform includes managing the relationships then your site doesn’t have any value. If the platform doesn’t include that then what value does the platform have?