The Social Network has little Value in a World of Flow

Fred Wilson recently wrote a post about how the flow of data is important versus the data itself. Primarily in response to the ongoing bushfire in the blogsphere about Facebook and Google Friend Connect and the larger context of data portability.

The conceptual point of flow versus data is important one to highlight.

It is very easy to confuse the two. To an extent this is an artifact of our language which emphasises objects (nouns) over flow (verbs). But it is also influenced by trying to use an existing frame-of-reference to discuss a new frame-of-reference that is only just beginning to come into focus. This is always going to make everything more difficult.

The web is moving into uncharted territory. Up to now we have been dealing with the conversion of existing real-world into an online equivalent. Now the web has reached the point that it is moving beyond the confines of being a real-world analogy. This is creating vast new opportunities, few of which are known to us now. Data portability discussion exits within this new framework.

To make headway understanding this new framework, we need to converse using language that properly describes this new framework. The language of flow will help us frame problems and hold conversations that enable solutions and new opportunities.

In Wither Social Networks, Arise Communities I pointed out that social networks are glorified contact books. A better way to look at social networks is that the merely describe a connection between two people. They are the pipes, wave-guides, tubes along which guide the flow. What happens at the end points is not part of the social network.

In addition to the guides, we have process points. The process points are where points along a flow something happens to the flow. Whether its received (such as email), or processed (such as Wesabe). A process point is not necessarily where the flow stops, merely where it undergoes some sort of processing.

Facebook's aim is to become the primary process point. They know (or suspect) that merely having a description of a flow network is not enough. They have to be a processing point, but here is their dilemma: Facebook was never designed with being a processing point in mind, merely a description of a flow network. So their strategy is to try and control of the description of flow networks by restricting access while they shift to being a processing point, Facebook Connect being an example.

Bear in mind that the flow network description has little intrinsic value. It is the flows along the network where the value lies. In this Robert Scoble is wrong. It is not the flow network where the value lies but flow along the guides that is important.

So is Facebook right or is Google right? How about neither? Facebook's move is entirely about trying provide themselves with time to become a processing point and less of a pure flow network. Google's aim is to get access to the flow network in order to get access to the processing points. Google looses out if it doesn't know about the processing points. Neither are taking the positions they are merely out of moral indignation. I do find Google's behaviour less obnoxious than Facebook as Google's move is about access where as Facebook's is about control. Not really surprising given Facebook's past behaviour and in the words Umair, evilness.

Ultimately, it is a meaningless argument. The web is shifting so fast that both companies actions will soon be lost in the momentum in the move to flow. The flow based web even looks like it will overtake the Data Portability movement. Rendering the broader discussion irrelevant as well.

Tags: Social Networks, Facebook, Data Portability, Google, Web Next, Web 2.0, Fred Wilson, Robert Scoble, Umair Haque, Web Services

Google App Engine is final leg of the strategy to disrupt social networks

With the announcement of Google App Engine and the resulting symphony (or cacophony) of conversation a lot has been said about cloud computing and Amazon's Web Services. For all the conversation not much has looked at the Facebook angel in detail.

Google App Engine strikes me less as a competitor to Amazon Web Services and more as the finial piece in the puzzle for creating a web-spanning social network. Google App Engine provides a place for applications to be built and hosted external to any social network. Coupled with Google's APIs for a users social network (the contact API), an identity mechanism (Google Accounts) and the OpenSocial APIs, everything that can be done in Facebook or any other social network can now be done by any application without having to be internal to any social network.

It is an innovative way of dealing with the issues of social networks by explicitly turning the web into a giant social network without walls.

Of course this will mean the very act of surfing could see you have a sheep tossed at you!

Tags: Google, Facebook, Google App Engine, Amazon,Amazon Web Services, Social Network, OpenSocial

When Humans are Removed

Ars Technica has an interesting report on a recent music industry conference. What struck me as interesting was an exec of a music label on a panel justifying their existence of labels by the work of "finding" music. To quote:

"anyone who has spent an hour or a day listening to demos understands the labels' place in the food chain"

The iLike CEO pointed out that this is no longer the case. That a label only need to look for musicians with 50,000 friends on MySpace.

What is interesting is how MySpace, iLike et al have turned finding new music from a costly human based activity to a software program. I'm not sure many people in the industry (whether the labels or companies like iLike) realise what is happening. The best analog is what Google did with advertising as Chris Anderson pointed out in his recent article in Wired:

"When Google turned advertising into a software application, a classic services business formerly based on human economics (things get more expensive each year) switched to software economics (things get cheaper)"

Did Google realise what would happen by turning advertising in a software application? Probably not. Just as Google unleashed value that was otherwise tied up as costs, so to will a software application(s) for finding new music unleash value otherwise tied up as costs. Music is going to shift back from being a package product to being an experience.

Tags: freenomics, Google, disruption, economics, iLike, chris+anderson, music

Google's achillies heel - Customer Service

Google's rise and rise has created a continued air breathless wonder that can the company do no wrong? Google smacks the ball well and even if their products don't always rocket to a six they rarely have a dot ball. Microhoo! is a reactive move against Google's strength.

But is that really necessary. Time and again customer service keeps coming back to haunt Google. Take Christopher Dawson's attempts to reactive his Gmail account. The action was neither prompt nor informative as to what happened. Nor was Google forth coming about providing basic information on the Christopher's account usage. Information provided by many other service providers.

So is this Google's Achillies heel? It could be. Customer service is going to be more and more important as Google's products move beyond mainstream. So too will be letting users access their own service and usage information. Of course both issues are fixable. The question is will Google put the effort into backing up their services with proper conversation with their users and decent customer service or will the continue to use a man behind a curtin and hope no one pulls the curtin back?

Tags: Google, Gmail

What will be the effect of an Open Xohm platform?

Sprint has announced the opening of the Xohm as a platform through APIs and an SDK. Ostensibly it will allow device manufacturers, application developers and 3rd party service providers to build items which take advantage of the Xohm networks in ways that are difficult and expensive currently.

It is, perhaps, the first example of a telco taking advantage of it's relationship with it's customers or put another way following the Telco2 strategy. It will also allow applications and services to be developed that are mere dreams (if they have been drempt at all) currently. Think games or VoIP services that ask for better quality service for the duration of usage rather than all the time or buying or buying something by snapping a barcode where the bill is attached to your access bill and delivered to your address by Amazon's fulfilment service from an address supplied by Sprint.

It is the next logical step from Google's push for open access to devices and applications for 700Mhz. This could have a rather interesting effect on wireless/mobile market direction. It is hard to compete against open with closed.

I foresee this changing the dynamics of the 700Mhz spectrum usage as well. The 700Mhz was important as it was nationwide and provided better in-door coverage. The in-door coverage, I think, is really a non-starter as by the time the 700Mhz network is established, short range WiMax access points will be fairly well distributed and many in-door areas will be able to roam from WiFi to WiMax. Femtocells and devices that can roam across different wireless networks will also be in abundance.

Sprint's move has made it very likely that who ever the owner of the 700Mhz spectrum is, they are going to have to follow the open access provisions and even go the same distanced to providing an open platform. Now wouldn't it be interesting if Google has won and decided to use the 700Mhz for a WiMax network that follows the Sprint Xohm platform strategy? Makes Sprint a likely candidate for building out Google's network if they have won.

Tags: Sprint, Xohm, Google, 700Mhz, Wireless, WiMax, Disruption, Telco2

Driving Real Change at Microsoft - Get Rid of Win32

Microsoft announced yesterday that it was releasing API and Client/Server interoperability details. Coming on the heals of the Microhoo! deal and Bill Gates publicly saying Microsoft is after the Yahoo engineers it must seem like Microsoft is going all open and friendly. But that misses a big point. Changing culture, particularly one ingrained and strong as Microsoft's, is not going to be as easy as publishing specs and adding a load of Yahoo engineers.

It is possible to change the culture for the better and the Yahoo engineers can play a big role, but they can't do it on their own.

The catalyst for the change is dropping the Win32 kernal and going with a Linux/BSD kernal. The Yahoo engineers then become evanglists and mentors for the adoption of the open-source kernal. The combination of the two provides a greater probability for success than either on its own. In a previous post I looked at why using a Linux/BSD kernal was a good idea so I won't go into the details. The difference between now and then is that having the Yahoo engineers makes the probabilty of sucess so much greater and faster.

Dropping the W32 kernal would be at least as radical shift in corporate strategy as Microsoft's turn around in the late 1990s to the web. We know the company can do radical strategy shifts and this would be the most radical and risky. But without doing something like this Microsoft is always going to struggle in a networked world.

I would honestly like to see this happen. It would be the single biggest threat to Google's dominance by stripping away the competitive advantage that open source provides the company.

Tags: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, OS, Open Source, Strategy, Disruption

While Google passes USD600 could its market cap be higher?

Google has passed USD600 overnight. Various analysts are predicting higher. Paul Kedrosky has predicted USD1000 by the end of the year. Which at this time is not as far fetched as many think. What interests me is a USD600 per share gives Google a market cap of USD190.28bn, but with a USD29.84 per share provides a market cap of USD280.55bn. Almost USD90bn more in market cap.

This leads to the question. If Google split its stock, how fast would the share price then rise and what would the market cap become? Could it pass Microsoft. Splitting the stock would initial reduce the share price and make more shares available for trading.

My guess is that the increase in share price after the split would be very rapid as many traders increase their existing holding and new traders create a holding. All in all an interesting thought experiment.

Update: Quick thought. Given that stock options are one of the key parts of Google compensation, I would think that as the stock price rises closer to USD1000 it will make these options less attractive for new employees. One way to address the issue would be to split the stock and give more room for faster growth for new employees. Nor would this harm existing employees. In fact it would allow them to realise some of their "wealth" without massively changing their share ownership.

Google and Apple: Joint bid for 700Mhz?

Rumours are circulating that Apple is going to bid for the 700 Mhz spectrum that the FCC is auctioning off. Various speculations over what it could be used for (iPhone MVNO, nation wide hotspot are possibilities) abound. What interests me more is if Google and Apple partnered to bid nation wide.

A partnership between the two would be hugely disruptive to the existing wireless companies. A Google and Apple partnership would bring together Google's information and infrastructure strengths with Apples consumer hardware and design strengths. A complete mobile office and internet access service based around Google Apps and Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch is a compelling combination.

The iPhone/Touch would provide the device that allows the user to access the cloud using the 700 Mhz spectrum. Google would then provide the cloud based services: push email, storage, applications, search, internet access etc. It would become a highly useful enterprise mobility platform while providing the first true wireless, ubiquitous internet platform.

Tags: Google, Apple, Wireless, 700Mhz

Facebook - the next x?

The blogsphere has oscillated between hysteria and backlash against Facebook since the release of the Facebook platform. Some have asked, what is so special about Facebook while others have breathlesssly compared Facebook to Google, Apple & Microsoft.

Now, I personally think the underlying value of Facebook is enormous. However, capturing that value or more accurately realising that value for both the company and users is going to be difficult. More importantly, this will be massively more difficult while people keep talking about Facebook being the next "wunderkin."

Put another way, Facebook is not and never will be Google or Apple or Microsoft or any other wunderkin company. It will be its own wunderkin company that charts a new direction for the industry just as the others have before it. Any punter that talks about Facebook being the next x, will completely and thoroughly miss what Facebook is and will achieve. Do not trust them. These punters are still stuck in the old world and will fail to see the new world.