Facebook's killer app is here. No, it's Not places.(blog.eyesandfeet.com)
blog.eyesandfeet.com
Facebook's killer app is here. No, it's Not places.
http://blog.eyesandfeet.com/2010/08/facebooks-killer-app-is-here-no-its-not.html
11 comments
Sad but I've got the same impression. The scariest bit for me is that people with whom I was exchanging emails, are now sending me FB messages instead.
That is to say they already have my email address, it's there probably memorised in their email app, and yet they use FB.
That's one scary power FB got there. Suddenly email is not open anymore. (Though I don't blame FB for it: they did business, didn't force it down anyone's throat).
That is to say they already have my email address, it's there probably memorised in their email app, and yet they use FB.
That's one scary power FB got there. Suddenly email is not open anymore. (Though I don't blame FB for it: they did business, didn't force it down anyone's throat).
What scares me is the other week I sent a Facebook message that should have been an email, largely because a different friend in the same social circle had sent me a Facebook message on a similar subject.
It's really hard to use Facebook without it taking total control of your social interaction.
It's really hard to use Facebook without it taking total control of your social interaction.
Another thing FB effectively fixed, app invites notwithstanding, was spam.
Probably lots of kids these days don't even know this, but there was once a time when your (probably only) email address was supplied by your university or employer. If two people moved, it was easy for them to lose contact with each other until a "chance" encounter (e.g. seeing them post on Usenet or whatever). Facebook solved that problem by making everyone's address book self-updating.
Probably lots of kids these days don't even know this, but there was once a time when your (probably only) email address was supplied by your university or employer. If two people moved, it was easy for them to lose contact with each other until a "chance" encounter (e.g. seeing them post on Usenet or whatever). Facebook solved that problem by making everyone's address book self-updating.
That was already fixed by the time Facebook came around. Hotmail was offering addresses that weren't tied to your uni or employer in 1996.
It also fixed event invitations extremely well. Events is Facebook's killer app it barely realises it has...
This is the main reason I always hear that people are 'forced' to stay on FB, even if they don't like it: so they can still get invited to parties.
That's just (somewhat justified) laziness on the party organizer's part since you can add people to Facebook events that aren't on Facebook by entering their email address. They get a normal invite and chance to RSVP. Facebook membership not required.
Hmm, facebook mail is absolutely horrid. It's a combination of spam messages and just contact that I will never read. I have 1000+ unread messages.
I actually read a fb message in my normal email box and if it's something actually valuable, ill then respond on FB.
I actually read a fb message in my normal email box and if it's something actually valuable, ill then respond on FB.
> I actually read a fb message in my normal email box and if it's something actually valuable, ill then respond on FB
And that's the important bit, people seem to either check FB mail directly or read it in there own email. Either way you've got more chance of getting through to them soon if you send via Facebook... I don't like it either though, it makes me rather uncofortable to have more comunication going through FB.
And that's the important bit, people seem to either check FB mail directly or read it in there own email. Either way you've got more chance of getting through to them soon if you send via Facebook... I don't like it either though, it makes me rather uncofortable to have more comunication going through FB.
Facebook didn't fix email with its Facebook 'mail', it did it with wall posts, comment conversations, and events.
This.
My experience with non-geeky friends is that they check facebook for messages and interact with friend/family through comments and wall-posts. Some of them get email notifications for these things but they use them as a prompt to go to facebook.com to view and respond. Email is the medium but not the message.
My experience with non-geeky friends is that they check facebook for messages and interact with friend/family through comments and wall-posts. Some of them get email notifications for these things but they use them as a prompt to go to facebook.com to view and respond. Email is the medium but not the message.
[deleted]
I don't think it's changed e-mail as much as it is changing mobile messaging (SMS). With notifications on mobile FB apps, you can easily bypass SMS to communicate with other friends either at their computer or on their phone.
There are still other e-mail features FB private messages don't offer: forwarding message threads, attachments, email subscriptions, etc.)
There are still other e-mail features FB private messages don't offer: forwarding message threads, attachments, email subscriptions, etc.)
Those can all be fixed easily enough. When (not if) facebook finally launches a full-featured email service, it will probably dominate gmail/yahoo/microsoft. You would get a address @fbmail.com or whatever so you could still use it as your "normal" free email client. But you then also get easy communication with all your friends, since facebook already knows how to contact them and can do so bypassing traditional email alltogether (since the messages stay entirely within facebook's data centers). Not to mention tying in to their existing products-If you got an event invitation (sent to your fbmail since you no longer check your gmail) it could show you all the details (no reason it couldn't do that right now) and which of your friends are going etc right in the email.
An interesting link in the context of your point:
http://www.aweber.com/blog/email-marketing/email-and-faceboo...
Note 1: check out the embedded video Note 2: take the rest of the content with a pinch of salt; this is an email marketing vendor's blog!
Note 1: check out the embedded video Note 2: take the rest of the content with a pinch of salt; this is an email marketing vendor's blog!
This is just the latest revision of AOL Keywords. How did that work out for them?
20 years after they were a startup, they made $400M in profit on revenue of $3.2B last year. I'm not saying those are sexy numnbers, but they're not exactly shabby, either.
They don't control the web though. So it's significant, but not as dire as the article implies it will be.
This is just the latest revision of MySpace pages too.
Except a major difference is Facebook has proven they are very talented and capable of making really well designed, easy to use and relatively bug free apps. Myspace could not even come close to pulling that off.
I personally don't see the appeal of Facebook pages. The only function I can see of "liking" any of these pages is to give Facebook more information so they can try to sell you more stuff.
The other day I got half-price cupcakes because I was following my supermarket on FB. So now the internet knows I'm a cupcake-eater... So long as there's some value in it for both parties, it can work.
The ability to "like" people and businesses can be used as a trust network. it's standard practice for people to ask their friends for recommendations when choosing a doctor, lawyer, or other service providers. None of the people I know who have small businesses advertise. They rely on "word-of-mouth" to get new clients. Facebook "liking" and future derivatives (perhaps unlike, recommend, and complain-about) is the Internet equivalent of "asking your friends."
Most people have 'likes' that years ago were groups that were silently transmuted into pages by the group owners, and since then silently turned into public 'likes' by Facebook.
In other words, it's a very poor trust network, because no one is using it that way. Most people 'like' a lot of stuff in a casual or even joking manner.
Unlike, recommend, and complain might be useful, but Facebook is an advertising platform, not a recommendation engine. I doubt they'll make that transition, because it would cut in on their revenue to let people clearly mark advertisers as unwanted.
In other words, it's a very poor trust network, because no one is using it that way. Most people 'like' a lot of stuff in a casual or even joking manner.
Unlike, recommend, and complain might be useful, but Facebook is an advertising platform, not a recommendation engine. I doubt they'll make that transition, because it would cut in on their revenue to let people clearly mark advertisers as unwanted.
The appeal to businesses is clear.
The appeal to users could be social ("What brands do I associate myself with?") or promotion-related ("Become our 1,000,000th fan and get this free thing!", "Facebook-exclusive discount!"). Also I don't think Facebook lets you put in bio information (favorite movies, etc.) anymore without it linking to a page.
The appeal to users could be social ("What brands do I associate myself with?") or promotion-related ("Become our 1,000,000th fan and get this free thing!", "Facebook-exclusive discount!"). Also I don't think Facebook lets you put in bio information (favorite movies, etc.) anymore without it linking to a page.
Facebook's increasing focus on business customers will be at the detriment of regular users, who will be demoted to the rank of mere 'consumers'. It's a subtle - but important - distinction.
Facebook's decision-making will increasingly be driven by thinking like "how can we monetize all this wealth of consumer data" or "how can we introduce tiered fanpage packages to business customers as a revenue stream" rather than focusing on what makes a great user experience.
Currently, knowing that my friend has achieved another 'badge' in Mafia Wars adds zero value to my life. It only gets worse as Facebook focuses more and more on business brands. What do I care if my friend 'likes' Apple or Nike? How does that improve my relationship with that person? People I am really friends with in real life don't care what brands I like, or what isotonic sports drink I drink. The like me because of me. Much as businesses would like to think that people define their lives by the products they buy (this is like the opening scenes in 'Fight Club' where Edward Norton's character tries to pick out stuff from an Ikea catalogue that defines himself) that's not a basis for a relationship. And Facebook used to be all about relationships. Now I look at my Live Stream...and it's got all this random flotsam floating downstream. I care about none of it.
The reason I love HN, incidentally, is because it's the polar opposite of MySpace and what Facebook is gradually becoming. Real people, that I share a lot in common with, expressing their real opinions, no auto-generated crap, and zero bling.
You see comments like "What could cause FB to die?" here on HN. They're so big at this stage, with the power of network effects and lock-in, that external competition is no threat to them realistically. The only way they will die is if they continue exactly the way they are now, making people's experience ever-more spam choked, till people realize "hey this experience is actually quite shit, even if I do have 500 online friends" and start looking for alternatives. We're not quite there yet though.
Facebook's decision-making will increasingly be driven by thinking like "how can we monetize all this wealth of consumer data" or "how can we introduce tiered fanpage packages to business customers as a revenue stream" rather than focusing on what makes a great user experience.
Currently, knowing that my friend has achieved another 'badge' in Mafia Wars adds zero value to my life. It only gets worse as Facebook focuses more and more on business brands. What do I care if my friend 'likes' Apple or Nike? How does that improve my relationship with that person? People I am really friends with in real life don't care what brands I like, or what isotonic sports drink I drink. The like me because of me. Much as businesses would like to think that people define their lives by the products they buy (this is like the opening scenes in 'Fight Club' where Edward Norton's character tries to pick out stuff from an Ikea catalogue that defines himself) that's not a basis for a relationship. And Facebook used to be all about relationships. Now I look at my Live Stream...and it's got all this random flotsam floating downstream. I care about none of it.
The reason I love HN, incidentally, is because it's the polar opposite of MySpace and what Facebook is gradually becoming. Real people, that I share a lot in common with, expressing their real opinions, no auto-generated crap, and zero bling.
You see comments like "What could cause FB to die?" here on HN. They're so big at this stage, with the power of network effects and lock-in, that external competition is no threat to them realistically. The only way they will die is if they continue exactly the way they are now, making people's experience ever-more spam choked, till people realize "hey this experience is actually quite shit, even if I do have 500 online friends" and start looking for alternatives. We're not quite there yet though.
Do you hide the spammy stuff? I'm interested in nearly none of the apps on Facebook, but I really enjoy status updates and comments. So whenever I see something in the feed from an app I'm not interested in, I click the Hide button then choose to hide everything from that app. Two clicks, it's gone forever. Used to have to do that quite a bit, but now I've got most things blocked, so only about once or twice a week do I have to block a new app. Compared to dealing with spam in my email, it's no big deal at all.
I didn't fully get your point earlier, but it's clearer now. You raise valid points. By the way, two points that may interest you: (1) I personally filter my facebook stream to weed out all the "spammy auto-updates" you've mentioned - so it feels a lot more 'human' to me. I get exactly what you mean (mafia wars is a pet peeve)
(2) The whole thing about the Dunbar number-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
(1) I personally filter my facebook stream to weed out all the "spammy auto-updates..."
Forcing users to 'prune' their status updates is in fact a symptom of something broken in the user experience. I check into Facebook every now and again, and I shouldn't to have to act like a gardener who has ignored his back yard for a month. A lot of status updates are incredibly frivolous too - Facebook's culture is not suited to my taste I guess. Virtually all of my (Facebook) friends are not hacker types and will post "I'm bored" or "feeling tired" or something equally awe-inspiring. Granted, this is something that Facebook would have never solved as they are trying to appeal to the mainstream, not early adopters. I love the fact that by logging onto HN I often learn something new, and quickly learn to a) write well and b) only talk about stuff you are knowledgeable about. Anything else and you will get caught out pretty quickly.
(2) The whole thing about the Dunbar number
This had occurred to me also when writing the original comment, but I didn't mention it as I don't see a decline as inevitable as an online community grows in size - I believe HN is proof of that. By deliberately appealing only to a narrow segment of the internet population through a strict, human-enforced culture (see HN guidelines), and allowing users to only maintain very loose ties if any with each other (contact info in your HN profile for example), it's possible to have meaningful, no-spam interaction on an online community. Pg mentioned recently that HN now gets something like 60k uniques per day. I've been on HN for quite a while and I think the quality of article and comments has been consistent over time. I think the Paul Buchheit philosophy of building something that a small number of people love, and that most people would hate (HN), rather than something that tries to appeal to everyone (Facebook) comes into play here. See my below comment on the 'tribes' concept for a possible solution to this problem in a social networking context. I believe it would work as it models how people organise themselves into groups in real life.
Forcing users to 'prune' their status updates is in fact a symptom of something broken in the user experience. I check into Facebook every now and again, and I shouldn't to have to act like a gardener who has ignored his back yard for a month. A lot of status updates are incredibly frivolous too - Facebook's culture is not suited to my taste I guess. Virtually all of my (Facebook) friends are not hacker types and will post "I'm bored" or "feeling tired" or something equally awe-inspiring. Granted, this is something that Facebook would have never solved as they are trying to appeal to the mainstream, not early adopters. I love the fact that by logging onto HN I often learn something new, and quickly learn to a) write well and b) only talk about stuff you are knowledgeable about. Anything else and you will get caught out pretty quickly.
(2) The whole thing about the Dunbar number
This had occurred to me also when writing the original comment, but I didn't mention it as I don't see a decline as inevitable as an online community grows in size - I believe HN is proof of that. By deliberately appealing only to a narrow segment of the internet population through a strict, human-enforced culture (see HN guidelines), and allowing users to only maintain very loose ties if any with each other (contact info in your HN profile for example), it's possible to have meaningful, no-spam interaction on an online community. Pg mentioned recently that HN now gets something like 60k uniques per day. I've been on HN for quite a while and I think the quality of article and comments has been consistent over time. I think the Paul Buchheit philosophy of building something that a small number of people love, and that most people would hate (HN), rather than something that tries to appeal to everyone (Facebook) comes into play here. See my below comment on the 'tribes' concept for a possible solution to this problem in a social networking context. I believe it would work as it models how people organise themselves into groups in real life.
Great post. I've been "bored" of Facebook for some time now (as I suspect many are). There's another thread on the main page where people are discussing whether or not Facebook is on the way out - I think it is, we're just waiting for something to replace it with. Twitter? Nope. My less technical and/or web savvy friends are never going to be interested in it. Diaspora? Maybe. But it seems like the purpose of Diaspora was to replace Facebook from the outset - that's just not how these things happen. More likely is that it will be something completely out of left field.
Thanks. I'm genuinely curious what people think of this, so I reposted it there.
I think the early-adopter types - like you, me and the typical HN user see real value when it prevents itself, and Facebook ain't it. Mainstream users will hop onto Facebook because their friends are there, not necessarily because it's the best social network out there, whereas early adopters will jump onto Facebook in it's early days because
a) it's cool
b) it's useful - for users - not businesses
c) it's not MySpace.
They will continue to stick around as long as these are still true. Whether a) is still true is debatable, b) is fading and c) is becoming more of a reality by the day.
I think the early-adopter types - like you, me and the typical HN user see real value when it prevents itself, and Facebook ain't it. Mainstream users will hop onto Facebook because their friends are there, not necessarily because it's the best social network out there, whereas early adopters will jump onto Facebook in it's early days because
a) it's cool
b) it's useful - for users - not businesses
c) it's not MySpace.
They will continue to stick around as long as these are still true. Whether a) is still true is debatable, b) is fading and c) is becoming more of a reality by the day.
Patrickk, some thoughts on your points:
a) Yes, it's not 'as cool' as before. But, thanks to the 'friends of friends' effect ypu've mentioned, it has achieved remarkable numbers while it 'was cool' - and at this time, that's all that matters.
b) I think businesses are starting to see value in facebook. Facebook Places (with the automatic creation of a facebook page too) will only catalyze this.
And...with a single destination site seeing 500mn+ users, we're in unchartered territory - history won't help us here.
a) Yes, it's not 'as cool' as before. But, thanks to the 'friends of friends' effect ypu've mentioned, it has achieved remarkable numbers while it 'was cool' - and at this time, that's all that matters.
b) I think businesses are starting to see value in facebook. Facebook Places (with the automatic creation of a facebook page too) will only catalyze this.
And...with a single destination site seeing 500mn+ users, we're in unchartered territory - history won't help us here.
On a) - cool is very subjective, so perhaps there's no point in even mentioning it. It depends on the person you ask.
On point b) - Facebook is focusing on making it's services more useful to business, at the detriment of it's core users. Facebook became popular in Harvard because you could scope out that cute undergrad you spotted around campus. The people in your network were tied to your friends and classmates in the real world. The more Facebook grows, the more it devalues it's definition of 'friend' (Facebook's definition of friend that is. Having 300 Mafia Wars friends might make me spend more time on Facebook for a while - increasing Facebook's stickiness, hence it's value to brand advertisers, but it doesn't mean I'll ever have a meaningful interaction with the members of my "Mafia").
Do I want to get notifications every time a 'friend' of mine 'likes' Xbox Live? No. That's not a real interaction - it's just spam. Do I want a notification every time a friend of mine logs into their account in a Starbucks (this is how I'd imagine their location-based feature working)? No. Of course I don't. I want my social network to only give me message that aren't auto-generated, i.e. those that are real messages from real people. Like HN comments.
I think Facebook has forgotten about what made it popular in the first place, and now because of it's size and self-sustaining growth, will implement features that are useless to it's core user base. There will be no telltale indicators (at least externally) of this growing dissatisfaction because any attrition of it's user base will be compensated by new, incoming users. And of course many people who don't like the service will hang around because they don't want to be out of the loop.
What I envision as the ideal would be social networks to emulate email and SMS. I can send a Gmail email to my Hotmail based friend. If I don't like Gmail, I can switch email providers and take my contacts with me. Social networks should organise in 'tribes'. You associate with whatever tribe you feel describes you best. Tribes can interact with each other. If I don't like my tribe (perhaps because it's becoming MySpace-like) I can move easily to another. There could be a tribe that appeals to HN type users, and another for 12 year old girls, and another for retirees. Each have their own identity and values. What I'm describing is an open protocol for social networks, which forces "tribes" (individual networks) to compete on how good they are, rather than how many of your friends are on that particular network. This will keep them honest as they can't depend on user lock-in. In an ideal world, Diaspora and Facebook would be on an open protocol and users could switch easily and painlessly.
On point b) - Facebook is focusing on making it's services more useful to business, at the detriment of it's core users. Facebook became popular in Harvard because you could scope out that cute undergrad you spotted around campus. The people in your network were tied to your friends and classmates in the real world. The more Facebook grows, the more it devalues it's definition of 'friend' (Facebook's definition of friend that is. Having 300 Mafia Wars friends might make me spend more time on Facebook for a while - increasing Facebook's stickiness, hence it's value to brand advertisers, but it doesn't mean I'll ever have a meaningful interaction with the members of my "Mafia").
Do I want to get notifications every time a 'friend' of mine 'likes' Xbox Live? No. That's not a real interaction - it's just spam. Do I want a notification every time a friend of mine logs into their account in a Starbucks (this is how I'd imagine their location-based feature working)? No. Of course I don't. I want my social network to only give me message that aren't auto-generated, i.e. those that are real messages from real people. Like HN comments.
I think Facebook has forgotten about what made it popular in the first place, and now because of it's size and self-sustaining growth, will implement features that are useless to it's core user base. There will be no telltale indicators (at least externally) of this growing dissatisfaction because any attrition of it's user base will be compensated by new, incoming users. And of course many people who don't like the service will hang around because they don't want to be out of the loop.
What I envision as the ideal would be social networks to emulate email and SMS. I can send a Gmail email to my Hotmail based friend. If I don't like Gmail, I can switch email providers and take my contacts with me. Social networks should organise in 'tribes'. You associate with whatever tribe you feel describes you best. Tribes can interact with each other. If I don't like my tribe (perhaps because it's becoming MySpace-like) I can move easily to another. There could be a tribe that appeals to HN type users, and another for 12 year old girls, and another for retirees. Each have their own identity and values. What I'm describing is an open protocol for social networks, which forces "tribes" (individual networks) to compete on how good they are, rather than how many of your friends are on that particular network. This will keep them honest as they can't depend on user lock-in. In an ideal world, Diaspora and Facebook would be on an open protocol and users could switch easily and painlessly.
I actually think Facebook has a decent grip of this spam problem. Your news feed doesn't show you all the events that happen, only a limited set. They figure out which people you interact with more, which updates get more attention, etc and only show you the ones that they think matters to you.
Their goal is to capture as much data as possible (updates, likes, places, pages) and to find the connections between things. With enough data and number crunching, they can figure out if you're interested in xbox or Mafia Wars updates or now and adjust accordingly.
Their goal is to capture as much data as possible (updates, likes, places, pages) and to find the connections between things. With enough data and number crunching, they can figure out if you're interested in xbox or Mafia Wars updates or now and adjust accordingly.
I've actually heard that it's also used by smaller businesses as a way to communicate with their target audience. So, for example, if you are a chain of cinemas, you can let everyone keep up with when/where you are going to release the next films. If you are a retailer, you can advertise when the new products are in.
A bit like they did in the past with email newsletters. (Though a lot better: for a start, it doesn't spam your inbox, which can remain for more important matters).
A bit like they did in the past with email newsletters. (Though a lot better: for a start, it doesn't spam your inbox, which can remain for more important matters).
Absolutely! Fan pages are a good way to stay in touch with existing customers/fans. Often, companies also provide special offers, early bird previews & discount coupons to facebook fans. And yes, it is replacing newsletters in some ways. However, I think most firms 'play safe' and send their 'news' through everything - twitter, facebook & email. So, if you're following a brand on multiple channels, the clutter is only compounded!
The contest-related stuff is a big reason, I suspect - I'm in a contest now with a team of people, where the team with the most "likes" clicked through them on to a company website is given an Ipad each (8 members). Believe me, we're doing a good job advertising the company for them :)
Interestingly, for all these competitions, the iPad seems the undisputed motivator these days!
Maybe because it's something a lot of people do want, but can't justify getting for themselves (I already have a laptop, I don't really need an Ipad).
Or maybe just 'cause it's the shiniest new toy around :)
Or maybe just 'cause it's the shiniest new toy around :)
An apartment complex near me is having an iPad giveaway, replacing their Wii giveaway.
Not only that, but when people 'like' your product, they automatically market it to all of their friends.
For a long time people have psuedo-individualised themselves through the products they associate with. Facebook makes this as easy as clicking 'Like'.
Scary. That's centralization to a degree I hardly imagine. I hope this will fail.
I don't think this is really centralization. Just another avenue for advertising. For example, even if (less mainstream) bands generally use a Myspace URL as their web presence, Myspace doesn't necessarily control the music industry.
I find the Facebook-controlled universal login much more unsettling, personally.
I find the Facebook-controlled universal login much more unsettling, personally.
I wouldn't expect failure unless people are extolling the almost certain exponential growth of user base. Where are the numbers on stagnant users? I have 4 very close friends that I would rather update via email or IM simply because I don't really care for the opinions of some people on my friends list and keeping track of that is a waste of time.
What Apple has become to mobile software, Facebook is becoming to business web presence.
For better or worse.
For better or worse.
MySpace band pages were the rage a few years ago. Times change. The MySpace pages at least provided value for both sides--you could hear the music and the bands could let you know about shows. Most business pages I've seen on Facebook are one sided in that the fan gets nothing out of it other than letting all their friends know what corporation they are a "fan" of.
It really depends on the business. There are a couple of local businesses here that I follow: a liquor store, a crepe cart, a coffee shop, etc. They all regularly post with specials, events, new dishes/type of coffee/beer, etc. YMMV, but knowing that I can pick up grilled fig, honey and goat cheese crepes on the way to work tomorrow is pretty cool in my book.
Though I imagine most pages are not quite so well utilized. These are all small, local businesses.
Though I imagine most pages are not quite so well utilized. These are all small, local businesses.
That's not really true. Bands can, and do, use Facebook pages as effectively as they used Myspace pages. You can include audio, tour dates, etc on Facebook pages quite easily. In fact it's my sole means of finding out when/where my favorite bands are touring now.
Facebook pages are even better, because this can apply to anything, not just bands. I also get informed of the latest Abstruse Goose, updates to favorite iPhone apps, etc, all through Facebook. It's just up to the owner of the page to use it effectively.
Facebook pages are even better, because this can apply to anything, not just bands. I also get informed of the latest Abstruse Goose, updates to favorite iPhone apps, etc, all through Facebook. It's just up to the owner of the page to use it effectively.
I've been noticing this trend as well. I commented to a friend recently, “Remember when there was more than one web page?”
Yea me too. As someone who doesn't have a Facebook account I notice it a lot.
I have actually started removing sites from my favourites list that are peppered with Facebook widgets. I just don't visit them anymore. There is still plenty of choice out there but stuff is slowly morphing into Facebook.
I have actually started removing sites from my favourites list that are peppered with Facebook widgets. I just don't visit them anymore. There is still plenty of choice out there but stuff is slowly morphing into Facebook.
I've seen plenty of commercials with: facebook.com/myproduct as their URL. Crazy shit.
When combined with Places, Pages becomes a significantly more compelling platform. For business owners it becomes a more vibrant and useful set of data. For consumers, it becomes more real time and as a result more social. For developers, it becomes a more interesting data set to build upon. This excerpt from GigaOM (http://gigaom.com/2010/08/20/facebook-places-the-real-target...) was telling:
We’re hearing that Facebook is pouring resources into pitching the Places feature as a tool for local businesses in dozens of markets, by approaching individual store-owners and business people and selling them on the idea of setting up a Places page for their location. According to Facebook’s description of the new feature, anyone can create a page for a place, but businesses can claim their page — by responding to a phone call from a Facebook representative, or by uploading some kind of official documentation that proves they have the right to that location.
We’re hearing that Facebook is pouring resources into pitching the Places feature as a tool for local businesses in dozens of markets, by approaching individual store-owners and business people and selling them on the idea of setting up a Places page for their location. According to Facebook’s description of the new feature, anyone can create a page for a place, but businesses can claim their page — by responding to a phone call from a Facebook representative, or by uploading some kind of official documentation that proves they have the right to that location.
All true only if organizational default url becomes their fb fan page and that is not likely to happen
Old news. Though if fan pages really took off with places like suggested then time is really running out for Google Me. Unless there's some super cool feature that really blows Facebook out of the water, but it is hard to imagine how anything could be.
FACT CHECK: 500 million users is over 25% of the world's online population.
Actually, the last time I checked http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html shows the world population at 6.8billion. So 500 million would only be 7% of the worlds population. Impressive, but nowhere near 25%.
Actually, the last time I checked http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html shows the world population at 6.8billion. So 500 million would only be 7% of the worlds population. Impressive, but nowhere near 25%.
Not everybody in the world is online, and thus not part of the worlds online population.
Online population: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
(approx 2 billion)
Don't forget the word "online" in the original statement.
For a huge population, email never worked very well, mostly since they had to find out someone else's email to talk to them. Facebook fixes this completely for any personal email use - all your real-life friends are friends on Facebook.
I'm guessing a huge percentage of personal mail has moved from email to Facebook messages - does anyone have any data about this by any chance?