Comments on: Does the future belong to Facebook? http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: chrisbrinkworth http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/#comment-1143 chrisbrinkworth Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:35:20 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=1469#comment-1143 Just wait until Microsoft gives them a stack more shares in return for rolling out Silverlight as part of the log-in process. That will through a new dynamic into the industry. Just wait until Microsoft gives them a stack more shares in return for rolling out Silverlight as part of the log-in process. That will through a new dynamic into the industry.

]]> By: Chris Brinkworth - TagMan http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/#comment-2759 Chris Brinkworth - TagMan Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:35:00 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=1469#comment-2759 Just wait until Microsoft gives them a stack more shares in return for rolling out Silverlight as part of the log-in process. That will through a new dynamic into the industry. Just wait until Microsoft gives them a stack more shares in return for rolling out Silverlight as part of the log-in process. That will through a new dynamic into the industry.

]]> By: adrianho http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/#comment-1142 adrianho Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:25:20 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=1469#comment-1142 Totally agree, with your points which are good ones and I was not advocating this as the only future, but proposing it as a possible one which I still think is valid. To your point about expert communities versus social circles, I think Facebook is going there already with its groups. These are now simply filters I could choose to apply to various searches or interactions. <br><br>However, I do believe that this is coming regardless of whether Facebook is the winner or not. The value of expertise and relevance as embodied by a social graph is so valuable and useful that it's a good bet there are a lot of different companies trying to figure this out from various angles. Totally agree, with your points which are good ones and I was not advocating this as the only future, but proposing it as a possible one which I still think is valid. To your point about expert communities versus social circles, I think Facebook is going there already with its groups. These are now simply filters I could choose to apply to various searches or interactions.

However, I do believe that this is coming regardless of whether Facebook is the winner or not. The value of expertise and relevance as embodied by a social graph is so valuable and useful that it's a good bet there are a lot of different companies trying to figure this out from various angles.

]]> By: adrianho http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/#comment-2686 adrianho Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:25:00 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=1469#comment-2686 Totally agree, with your points which are good ones and I was not advocating this as the only future, but proposing it as a possible one which I still think is valid. To your point about expert communities versus social circles, I think Facebook is going there already with its groups. These are now simply filters I could choose to apply to various searches or interactions. However, I do believe that this is coming regardless of whether Facebook is the winner or not. The value of expertise and relevance as embodied by a social graph is so valuable and useful that it's a good bet there are a lot of different companies trying to figure this out from various angles. Totally agree, with your points which are good ones and I was not advocating this as the only future, but proposing it as a possible one which I still think is valid. To your point about expert communities versus social circles, I think Facebook is going there already with its groups. These are now simply filters I could choose to apply to various searches or interactions.

However, I do believe that this is coming regardless of whether Facebook is the winner or not. The value of expertise and relevance as embodied by a social graph is so valuable and useful that it’s a good bet there are a lot of different companies trying to figure this out from various angles.

]]> By: sgerson http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/#comment-1141 sgerson Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:13:39 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=1469#comment-1141 forgive me, but I feel that I see this pattern often: current strategy exists, new strategy emerges, people decide new strategy is better in some absolute sense and wonder whether it will entirely usurp current strategy, new strategy is experimented with, and ultimately integrated into diversifying portfolio of strategies - which includes both new and old. rinse, dry, repeat. print publishing will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with online publishing. similarly, the non-social web (or non-social venues on the web) will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with the social web.<br><br>oh and rarely do strategies go entirely extinct; they may continue existing but change their function to artsy/historical artifacts (e.g. typewriters). <br><br>"If they are successful, I can see that I would want to bring my social graph (and its associated data) to bear on almost every interaction I have on the Web. As information grows, it will become less and less productive for me to browse or interact with any site anonymously."<br><br>take search for example: when I'm looking for a good restaurant or a unique Valentine's Day restaurant, it may make sense to ask my friends. but when I wanna learn about some obscure surgery that my friends know nothing about, it may not (may make more sense to ask an expert community). and when I wanna learn about a sex change operation because I'm transgender, which is something neither my parents nor most folks in my life know, it may make sense to be entirely anonymous. <br><br>Facebook is articulating the social side of the spectrum of our experience of the web. but ultimately, it's just making online life more similar to offline life.....or rather, more similar to life! in which we choose to be social, non, and/or anonymous, depending on the circumstances.<br><br>so the juicy question for me is: under which circumstances/for which types of information interaction [clearly not sure how to frame this question] to use which type [crudely, the spectrum from non-social <=> social] of web? i.e. the juice is in developing an actual model, vs. painting one strategy as the future... forgive me, but I feel that I see this pattern often: current strategy exists, new strategy emerges, people decide new strategy is better in some absolute sense and wonder whether it will entirely usurp current strategy, new strategy is experimented with, and ultimately integrated into diversifying portfolio of strategies – which includes both new and old. rinse, dry, repeat. print publishing will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with online publishing. similarly, the non-social web (or non-social venues on the web) will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with the social web.

oh and rarely do strategies go entirely extinct; they may continue existing but change their function to artsy/historical artifacts (e.g. typewriters).

“If they are successful, I can see that I would want to bring my social graph (and its associated data) to bear on almost every interaction I have on the Web. As information grows, it will become less and less productive for me to browse or interact with any site anonymously.”

take search for example: when I'm looking for a good restaurant or a unique Valentine's Day restaurant, it may make sense to ask my friends. but when I wanna learn about some obscure surgery that my friends know nothing about, it may not (may make more sense to ask an expert community). and when I wanna learn about a sex change operation because I'm transgender, which is something neither my parents nor most folks in my life know, it may make sense to be entirely anonymous.

Facebook is articulating the social side of the spectrum of our experience of the web. but ultimately, it's just making online life more similar to offline life…..or rather, more similar to life! in which we choose to be social, non, and/or anonymous, depending on the circumstances.

so the juicy question for me is: under which circumstances/for which types of information interaction [clearly not sure how to frame this question] to use which type [crudely, the spectrum from non-social <=> social] of web? i.e. the juice is in developing an actual model, vs. painting one strategy as the future…

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/2009/does-the-future-belong-to-facebook/#comment-2685 Anonymous Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:13:00 +0000 http://www.zeusjones.com/blog/?p=1469#comment-2685 forgive me, but I feel that I see this pattern often: current strategy exists, new strategy emerges, people decide new strategy is better in some absolute sense and wonder whether it will entirely usurp current strategy, new strategy is experimented with, and ultimately integrated into diversifying portfolio of strategies - which includes both new and old. rinse, dry, repeat. print publishing will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with online publishing. similarly, the non-social web (or non-social venues on the web) will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with the social web. oh and rarely do strategies go entirely extinct; they may continue existing but change their function to artsy/historical artifacts (e.g. typewriters). "If they are successful, I can see that I would want to bring my social graph (and its associated data) to bear on almost every interaction I have on the Web. As information grows, it will become less and less productive for me to browse or interact with any site anonymously." take search for example: when I'm looking for a good restaurant or a unique Valentine's Day restaurant, it may make sense to ask my friends. but when I wanna learn about some obscure surgery that my friends know nothing about, it may not (may make more sense to ask an expert community). and when I wanna learn about a sex change operation because I'm transgender, which is something neither my parents nor most folks in my life know, it may make sense to be entirely anonymous. Facebook is articulating the social side of the spectrum of our experience of the web. but ultimately, it's just making online life more similar to offline life.....or rather, more similar to life! in which we choose to be social, non, and/or anonymous, depending on the circumstances. so the juicy question for me is: under which circumstances/for which types of information interaction [clearly not sure how to frame this question] to use which type [crudely, the spectrum from non-social social] of web? i.e. the juice is in developing an actual model, vs. painting one strategy as the future... forgive me, but I feel that I see this pattern often: current strategy exists, new strategy emerges, people decide new strategy is better in some absolute sense and wonder whether it will entirely usurp current strategy, new strategy is experimented with, and ultimately integrated into diversifying portfolio of strategies – which includes both new and old. rinse, dry, repeat. print publishing will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with online publishing. similarly, the non-social web (or non-social venues on the web) will not die, but simply renegotiate its function with the social web.

oh and rarely do strategies go entirely extinct; they may continue existing but change their function to artsy/historical artifacts (e.g. typewriters).

“If they are successful, I can see that I would want to bring my social graph (and its associated data) to bear on almost every interaction I have on the Web. As information grows, it will become less and less productive for me to browse or interact with any site anonymously.”

take search for example: when I’m looking for a good restaurant or a unique Valentine’s Day restaurant, it may make sense to ask my friends. but when I wanna learn about some obscure surgery that my friends know nothing about, it may not (may make more sense to ask an expert community). and when I wanna learn about a sex change operation because I’m transgender, which is something neither my parents nor most folks in my life know, it may make sense to be entirely anonymous.

Facebook is articulating the social side of the spectrum of our experience of the web. but ultimately, it’s just making online life more similar to offline life…..or rather, more similar to life! in which we choose to be social, non, and/or anonymous, depending on the circumstances.

so the juicy question for me is: under which circumstances/for which types of information interaction [clearly not sure how to frame this question] to use which type [crudely, the spectrum from non-social social] of web? i.e. the juice is in developing an actual model, vs. painting one strategy as the future…

]]>