My facebook no longer fits - Richard Hammond(mirror.co.uk)
mirror.co.uk
My facebook no longer fits - Richard Hammond
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/motoring/hammond/2007/09/29/my-facebook-no-longer-fits-89520-19866724/
21 comments
There is no way facebook even remotely approximates live interaction.
Also, going to bars isn't just about singles. Getting a drink at a pub with friends is lovely.
To a certain extend, I agree with the guy, from the first few paragraphs at least.
There needs to be richer interaction online for most people to "get it". Two-way streaming video and audio would be a start. Expressive physical avatars would be fun too.
Also, going to bars isn't just about singles. Getting a drink at a pub with friends is lovely.
To a certain extend, I agree with the guy, from the first few paragraphs at least.
There needs to be richer interaction online for most people to "get it". Two-way streaming video and audio would be a start. Expressive physical avatars would be fun too.
The fact that Facebook is not as "rich" as face-to-face interaction is a feature, not a bug.
Live interaction is great, and we will always enjoy it, but it doesn't scale: you can't go to the pub with more than a handful of friends at a time. If you take a group of fifty people out to the pub you will obviously have to break into a bunch of little sub-groups. If your two best friends end up in different sub-groups, you will either have to ignore one of them or pursue the "mingling" strategy: talk to one small group for half an hour or so, then stroll away on the pretext of getting another beer and wander into another small group.
The "live interaction" version of your Facebook page is your wedding reception. Now, I enjoyed my own wedding reception, but I also have to say that I wouldn't be anxious to hold another one. The good news is that I got to see many of my relatives, my high school friends, my college friends, my grad school friends, my music-playing friends, and my wife's relatives and friends. The bad news is that I talked to each of them for exactly two minutes before moving on to the next. Since I was the guest of honor, I was socially obligated to mingle rather than stick with a single small group, so I ended up exhausted and vaguely unsatisfied.
The "live interaction" version of news.yc is a technical conference with several hundred attendees. The good news about a conference is that nobody is obligated to try and talk to every attendee, so you are free to break up into managable little groups. The bad news is that if you're eating lunch with your colleagues in one room while DHH, PG, RMS, Woz, Bill Gates, and Al Gore are engaged in a passionate technical conversation in another room, you may never realize what you were missing. Even if you spot the PG table, you may find it rude to simply abandon your colleagues mid-lunch in order to go over and kibitz. And there are both physical and social limits to how many people can listen over PG's shoulder.
Live interaction is great, and we will always enjoy it, but it doesn't scale: you can't go to the pub with more than a handful of friends at a time. If you take a group of fifty people out to the pub you will obviously have to break into a bunch of little sub-groups. If your two best friends end up in different sub-groups, you will either have to ignore one of them or pursue the "mingling" strategy: talk to one small group for half an hour or so, then stroll away on the pretext of getting another beer and wander into another small group.
The "live interaction" version of your Facebook page is your wedding reception. Now, I enjoyed my own wedding reception, but I also have to say that I wouldn't be anxious to hold another one. The good news is that I got to see many of my relatives, my high school friends, my college friends, my grad school friends, my music-playing friends, and my wife's relatives and friends. The bad news is that I talked to each of them for exactly two minutes before moving on to the next. Since I was the guest of honor, I was socially obligated to mingle rather than stick with a single small group, so I ended up exhausted and vaguely unsatisfied.
The "live interaction" version of news.yc is a technical conference with several hundred attendees. The good news about a conference is that nobody is obligated to try and talk to every attendee, so you are free to break up into managable little groups. The bad news is that if you're eating lunch with your colleagues in one room while DHH, PG, RMS, Woz, Bill Gates, and Al Gore are engaged in a passionate technical conversation in another room, you may never realize what you were missing. Even if you spot the PG table, you may find it rude to simply abandon your colleagues mid-lunch in order to go over and kibitz. And there are both physical and social limits to how many people can listen over PG's shoulder.
It doesn't have to be 100%-same-as-face-to-face or nothing. In fact, it would be misguided to have imitation of "real life" be your guiding principle when designing stuff on the internet. Your ultimate goal, then, would be to create an extra copy of something we already have--the real world--and that's obviously pointless.
And nobody ever does that with the Web. What people actually do is create modes of interaction that are deliberately different from and better than real life. Just because you or I can't think of a mode that's as "rich" as face-to-face interaction, but is better for whatever purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And nobody ever does that with the Web. What people actually do is create modes of interaction that are deliberately different from and better than real life. Just because you or I can't think of a mode that's as "rich" as face-to-face interaction, but is better for whatever purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I say - meet at home. It's more comfortable and way cheaper.
I've got to admit feeling more and more disenchanted with FaceBook and MySpace.
There's a difference between addictive and useful. FaceBook is addictive, but are all those people really my friends? (Real friends are people who will help you move furniture) Isn't it a lot like the devil spawn between a phonebook and a gossiping game?
LinkedIn to me seems a little more honest. It's there for business purposes. FaceBook looks just like a huge time sink. A online video game designed around human's social instincts.
Hey. I'm old and probably don't get it. I like to spend my time doing things that have impact in the real world, even if it's programming or engaging in discussions. What does FaceBook do? Exist? Perhaps there is some new kind of socializing and friendship that's being created with Web 2.0. Fine. That makes sense. But the individual still has to do the cost-reward work. At the risk of being branded a heretic, I'm afraid "Do something users want" might be incomplete, at least from a consumer's standpoint.
Note that I'm talking about FaceBook and MySpace exclusively. The whole "how many people can you actually physcially relate to at any one time" is a different question entirely. Discussion boards, especially good ones, seem to me to be a different animal.
There's a difference between addictive and useful. FaceBook is addictive, but are all those people really my friends? (Real friends are people who will help you move furniture) Isn't it a lot like the devil spawn between a phonebook and a gossiping game?
LinkedIn to me seems a little more honest. It's there for business purposes. FaceBook looks just like a huge time sink. A online video game designed around human's social instincts.
Hey. I'm old and probably don't get it. I like to spend my time doing things that have impact in the real world, even if it's programming or engaging in discussions. What does FaceBook do? Exist? Perhaps there is some new kind of socializing and friendship that's being created with Web 2.0. Fine. That makes sense. But the individual still has to do the cost-reward work. At the risk of being branded a heretic, I'm afraid "Do something users want" might be incomplete, at least from a consumer's standpoint.
Note that I'm talking about FaceBook and MySpace exclusively. The whole "how many people can you actually physcially relate to at any one time" is a different question entirely. Discussion boards, especially good ones, seem to me to be a different animal.
I agree...
I like facebook for 2 reasons:
It lets me find old friends I've lost touch with, and it shows me what they're up to every now and then.
The rest of the crap (Feeding virtual fishes, 'poking' each other), they can keep.
The whole 'myspace' mentality of 'requesting friend' then adding ad infinitum - I think that's the weirdest thing. People who religiously seek out 'friends' to add etc. When you have hundreds or even thousands of 'friends' they become meaningless.
The rest of the crap (Feeding virtual fishes, 'poking' each other), they can keep.
The whole 'myspace' mentality of 'requesting friend' then adding ad infinitum - I think that's the weirdest thing. People who religiously seek out 'friends' to add etc. When you have hundreds or even thousands of 'friends' they become meaningless.
Is facebook really worth 5 billion? If so Mark Zuckerberg should really consider selling more %. The way I see it facebook serves some basic wants but it is far from the ultimate website, which should take over within the next two years when web developers start to fullfill the potential of Internet.
This article is extremely biased but the points made are legit. Facebook needs to develop its 2.0 or start selling while its stocks are high.
This article is extremely biased but the points made are legit. Facebook needs to develop its 2.0 or start selling while its stocks are high.
Couple of years and we'll have all pretty much forgotten about facebook IMHO. It'd be a gross miscalculation for them to believe they're the next google. They should take what they can while they have the hype.
The Web is the ultimate website. That's what walled gardens forget.
wow you're easily influenced by internet memes, I have trouble seeing how a site with a reasonably complete api is a walled garden.
I don't know much about their API so I can't comment on that, but things like this: http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/06/facebook-opening-up-but... don't make them look like good citizens of the Web.
the fact that you can't comment on it's api is a pretty big reason why you shouldn't be throwing out remarks like "walled garden" just because you see marketing sites (techcrunch) doing it, they too understand little about the technology they write about.
btw facebook released an api method to do the status change thing you can get more info here: http://developers.facebook.com/documentation.php?v=1.0&d...
btw facebook released an api method to do the status change thing you can get more info here: http://developers.facebook.com/documentation.php?v=1.0&d...
everything is behind login screens so search engines can't index it. you consume it and interact with it on facebook's terms. whether it's a data roach motel, or a walled garden, or whatever, it's basically an AOL bromide that will make a few people very rich and then eventually fade into mediocrity and obscurity.
OMG gmail has a login screen.. eww data roach motel!!!
the information you read on facebook be it notes by your friends, their pictures, relationship status or what have you, doesn't make much sense in a public search. Either you have never used facebook or simply don't understand it.
the information you read on facebook be it notes by your friends, their pictures, relationship status or what have you, doesn't make much sense in a public search. Either you have never used facebook or simply don't understand it.
the answer to your troubles lies here: http://developers.facebook.com/terms.php
would you mind being more specific as to what part of the tos you consider to be so horribly closed? please complement your response with examples of other more open systems on the interwebs
I don't get it either... email and blogging does what Facebook does so much better. I won't check Facebook or Twitter or MySpace for the same reason I refuse to check my voice mail at work -- checking too many things and having too many accounts is a waste of time.
Send me an email, or I won't respond. Once people know this, my life and theirs becomes so easy!
Send me an email, or I won't respond. Once people know this, my life and theirs becomes so easy!
Like Scoble says, it's my online rolodex. It's a rolodex where you'll have to click at least several times to see all of who you're friends with, and by default you only see people of one particular kind, along with those who have left you messages.
So uh, it kind of sucks as a shared contact manager the way Highrise is.
So uh, it kind of sucks as a shared contact manager the way Highrise is.
Facebook: You log in continuously and see up to date information about people you know, if everyone you know is on Facebook. It was fun before the minifeed too.
[deleted]
> When I first looked at Facebook it was in the bar of a hotel with workmates. [...] They showed me - it meant nothing.
People who use Facebook wonder what going to bars is for:
"As far as I can see, it's a building where you put out an image of yourself [a bunch of make-up and/or cologne] and other people do the same.
Then you all send each other little glances and approach one another and make pretend 'friends'. And that's sort of it, really."