The Business Web 2.0
As CEO of business-based social networking site WeCanDo.BIZ, read my take on the role Web 2.0 technologies can play helping businesses to grow.
Friday 27 February 2009, 9:07 PM
What exactly does Google have to fear from Twitter?
Twitter is the darling of the social media world, with many bloggers saying Google should fear it, if not buy it. But what threat or opportunity does Twitter actually pose?
Yes, yes, another blog about Twitter, the Web 2.0 service of the moment. You are bound to have heard of it; if not be sick of hearing about it. The fact remains, however, that it is enjoying stellar growth -- reputedly 900% plus over the last year, although exact user numbers are hard to determine as Twitter itself is secretive. Further, around 80% of users access the service through third party software, like TweetDeck, so don't appear on statistics showing Twitter website usage, as they go in through the API (so straight into the database rather than through the website).
This week saw Google add its own Twitter account, which has got the blogosphere wondering whether it has merely acknowledged its importance; or whether it may be circling for acquisition. Others believe that Twitter poses the biggest threat yet seen to Google's core business of search.
So what does Twitter offer that Google should be worrying about?
1) A compelling search alternative
Google owns the search market, delivering the vast majority of search results and having seen off well established encumbents such as Alta Vista, Yahoo!, Ask and Microsoft's Live Search. It has also done its bit to see companies like Yell booted out of the FTSE100. Few people can name another traditional search engine that offers a chance of threatening its hugely dominant position.
But search as Google does it is flawed. I wrote last June on the dubious value of getting 67,000,000 responses to a search query when perhaps just a few would be more useful, especially if what you get back is very much more relevant -- and by my definition, not about those who have spent a fortune on SEO.
I had a forum debate with the managing director of a business directory, a company that arguably sees itself going head to head with Google, about whose site was better: his directory or my business lead and referral site. I'll spare you the tittle tattle, but his assertion was that his site was better because if you typed "accountant" it came back with 22,000 entries. I said WeCanDo.BIZ was better because it came back with a handful, but within those you could see which of those was used and endorsed by your own business contacts. Few people actually have a need for 22,000 accountants, but if they did then his site would be better. I believe a person would be likely to choose one business over any of the 22,000 others if came with a recommendation from someone they know and trust.
You can move the same argument to Google and Twitter. I see Tweeple already asking questions of their Twitter followers that in LBT (Life Before Twitter) they would have gone to Google to post as a search query. Why do they use Twitter to ask questions now? Because someone they have a relationship with will give them a knowledgable, qualified answer to "where do I find a good accountant", rather than them having to sift through 33,900,00 (seriously!) responses to "accountant" in Google (of any other search engine for that matter).
Yes, Twitter has its own search facility hidden away at http://search.twitter.com, but there is rarely a need to use that because your network probably holds many of the answers. As I said back in June, if I want a good accountant, one name recommended by a contact is many times more useful to me that 33 million listings where I carry the risk as to how good any one of them is. Twitter is as valuable for finding out what good resturants, the exchange rate for the dong, or the name of the main character in 1970's sci fi drama 'V'.
It's power is in your answers being people powered, not matched by a bot and easy to cheat by the SEO savvy.
2) Better engagement with visitors
At this point in time I don't doubt that most web site traffic comes from Google. But what is that traffic worth? Spend any time on forums heavily populated by so-called 'SEO experts' and you'll find their currency is page rank and whether you get listed on the hallowed Page 1. But many think their job is done if you rank well on Google, with a token nod towards compelling content on your own website to draw visitors in and to get specific engagement. Even if your website is hugely engaging, what is the conversion rate for most businesses on clicks to contact? If anyone betters 5% they are doing well. 10,000 visitors a day who never contact you is worth nothing that any business can measure.
And here is a key way in which Twitter beats the old way of doing things. Visitors to my Twitter profile will make an instant decision on whether I am worth following, based not only on what I say about my own business (not all of which you could find on my website), but also what I comment on, Tweet and ReTweet from the rest of the web. They'll consider whether I can save them having to find stuff they're interested in. If they see me Tweeting enough of value then they'll follow me -- and I get one more name in my opt-in marketing list. I currently pick up ten followers a day (join them: @wecandobiz), but how long would I have to wait for my website to pick up the same number of opt-in newsletter subscribers, for example?
But being given permission to send to new followers is, literally, only half the story. Through Twitter we also have a mechanism for conversation. It is easy for any of my followers to comment on my content -- how many people reply to newsletters or fill out contact pages with thoughts, good or bad? And I also get to see what each of my followers is interested in and passionate about. Twitter can be conversational, but if you just read what your contacts share you can learn a lot about your customers, prospects, market and industry. With newsletters, this sort of stuff just never happens.
Where Twitter isn't so good
OK, it isn't perfect. It shows enormous promise as a method of driving your business objectives forward, but Twitter is too hard to use today; too disorganised. The search almost feels like it's on a different website. And many of the most useful Tweeting tools are provided by third parties that you only get to hear about once your network has started to grow. And, more often than not, each third party app does one or maybe a couple of things well, but you end up using a bunch of tools to monitor tweets, add new followers, thank new followers, schedule Tweets, automate RSS feeds as Tweets... at this point in time I use TweetDeck, TweetLater, Twitterfeed and Twollo. I use them well, but it's still four apps to maintain my Twitter presence.
But Twitter has grown to well over 6 million users, many of whom are big fans (there are business people who love it as well as Stephen Fry), IN SPITE of it being a pain in the arse to use. If Twitter went beyond the geeky "What are you doing?" focused website they launched in 2006 and better reflected the way most Tweeple actually use it, then Google would have real grounds to get worried. That needn't be a move towards 'slicker' that might alienate existing fans, but just a wizard which helps new users recognise the best way of using it (I mean, come on, how many of your Tweets are an answer to "What are you doing?" Recognise that no-one cares!), an easy way to follow and build followers; and perhaps each Tweet also bringing back details of other people Tweeting on the same subject -- ooh, a bit like search results...
I'd love to read your thoughts.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Yes, yes, another blog about Twitter, the Web 2.0 service of the moment. You are bound to have heard of it; if not be sick of hearing about it. The fact remains, however, that it is enjoying stellar growth -- reputedly 900% plus over the last year, although exact user numbers are hard to determine as Twitter itself is secretive. Further, around 80% of users access the service through third party software, like TweetDeck, so don't appear on statistics showing Twitter website usage, as they go in through the API (so straight into the database rather than through the website).
This week saw Google add its own Twitter account, which has got the blogosphere wondering whether it has merely acknowledged its importance; or whether it may be circling for acquisition. Others believe that Twitter poses the biggest threat yet seen to Google's core business of search.
So what does Twitter offer that Google should be worrying about?
1) A compelling search alternative
Google owns the search market, delivering the vast majority of search results and having seen off well established encumbents such as Alta Vista, Yahoo!, Ask and Microsoft's Live Search. It has also done its bit to see companies like Yell booted out of the FTSE100. Few people can name another traditional search engine that offers a chance of threatening its hugely dominant position.
But search as Google does it is flawed. I wrote last June on the dubious value of getting 67,000,000 responses to a search query when perhaps just a few would be more useful, especially if what you get back is very much more relevant -- and by my definition, not about those who have spent a fortune on SEO.
I had a forum debate with the managing director of a business directory, a company that arguably sees itself going head to head with Google, about whose site was better: his directory or my business lead and referral site. I'll spare you the tittle tattle, but his assertion was that his site was better because if you typed "accountant" it came back with 22,000 entries. I said WeCanDo.BIZ was better because it came back with a handful, but within those you could see which of those was used and endorsed by your own business contacts. Few people actually have a need for 22,000 accountants, but if they did then his site would be better. I believe a person would be likely to choose one business over any of the 22,000 others if came with a recommendation from someone they know and trust.
You can move the same argument to Google and Twitter. I see Tweeple already asking questions of their Twitter followers that in LBT (Life Before Twitter) they would have gone to Google to post as a search query. Why do they use Twitter to ask questions now? Because someone they have a relationship with will give them a knowledgable, qualified answer to "where do I find a good accountant", rather than them having to sift through 33,900,00 (seriously!) responses to "accountant" in Google (of any other search engine for that matter).
Yes, Twitter has its own search facility hidden away at http://search.twitter.com, but there is rarely a need to use that because your network probably holds many of the answers. As I said back in June, if I want a good accountant, one name recommended by a contact is many times more useful to me that 33 million listings where I carry the risk as to how good any one of them is. Twitter is as valuable for finding out what good resturants, the exchange rate for the dong, or the name of the main character in 1970's sci fi drama 'V'.
It's power is in your answers being people powered, not matched by a bot and easy to cheat by the SEO savvy.
2) Better engagement with visitors
At this point in time I don't doubt that most web site traffic comes from Google. But what is that traffic worth? Spend any time on forums heavily populated by so-called 'SEO experts' and you'll find their currency is page rank and whether you get listed on the hallowed Page 1. But many think their job is done if you rank well on Google, with a token nod towards compelling content on your own website to draw visitors in and to get specific engagement. Even if your website is hugely engaging, what is the conversion rate for most businesses on clicks to contact? If anyone betters 5% they are doing well. 10,000 visitors a day who never contact you is worth nothing that any business can measure.
And here is a key way in which Twitter beats the old way of doing things. Visitors to my Twitter profile will make an instant decision on whether I am worth following, based not only on what I say about my own business (not all of which you could find on my website), but also what I comment on, Tweet and ReTweet from the rest of the web. They'll consider whether I can save them having to find stuff they're interested in. If they see me Tweeting enough of value then they'll follow me -- and I get one more name in my opt-in marketing list. I currently pick up ten followers a day (join them: @wecandobiz), but how long would I have to wait for my website to pick up the same number of opt-in newsletter subscribers, for example?
But being given permission to send to new followers is, literally, only half the story. Through Twitter we also have a mechanism for conversation. It is easy for any of my followers to comment on my content -- how many people reply to newsletters or fill out contact pages with thoughts, good or bad? And I also get to see what each of my followers is interested in and passionate about. Twitter can be conversational, but if you just read what your contacts share you can learn a lot about your customers, prospects, market and industry. With newsletters, this sort of stuff just never happens.
Where Twitter isn't so good
OK, it isn't perfect. It shows enormous promise as a method of driving your business objectives forward, but Twitter is too hard to use today; too disorganised. The search almost feels like it's on a different website. And many of the most useful Tweeting tools are provided by third parties that you only get to hear about once your network has started to grow. And, more often than not, each third party app does one or maybe a couple of things well, but you end up using a bunch of tools to monitor tweets, add new followers, thank new followers, schedule Tweets, automate RSS feeds as Tweets... at this point in time I use TweetDeck, TweetLater, Twitterfeed and Twollo. I use them well, but it's still four apps to maintain my Twitter presence.
But Twitter has grown to well over 6 million users, many of whom are big fans (there are business people who love it as well as Stephen Fry), IN SPITE of it being a pain in the arse to use. If Twitter went beyond the geeky "What are you doing?" focused website they launched in 2006 and better reflected the way most Tweeple actually use it, then Google would have real grounds to get worried. That needn't be a move towards 'slicker' that might alienate existing fans, but just a wizard which helps new users recognise the best way of using it (I mean, come on, how many of your Tweets are an answer to "What are you doing?" Recognise that no-one cares!), an easy way to follow and build followers; and perhaps each Tweet also bringing back details of other people Tweeting on the same subject -- ooh, a bit like search results...
I'd love to read your thoughts.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Friday 20 February 2009, 12:38 PM
OpenID and Facebook Connect: actually, does there need to be a winner?
Website owners have been watching the battle between the open standards based OpenID and proprietary Facebook Connect for over a year now, waiting for a winner. But I'm now wondering, does there NEED to be a winner?
My last post on data portability drew some interesting comments. Not only were specific implementations of OpenID defended by Kevin Marks at Google -- and I concede that there are some that are much easier to use than others, whilst providing pretty rich functionality -- but I got some interesting direct contacts.
Like many, we've been holding off implementing either OpenID or Facebook Connect until we see which solution people (site owners and visitors) are favouring; and until they also get a bit easier to implement and use. It seems I needn't have done so, however, because I got an e-mail from the guys at JanRain of Portland, Oregon, who have a solution that enables you to log in to either through a single and smart looking interface.
Their website describes well how RPX works but, in essence, they provide a hosted solution for authenticating your site users using OpenID or Facebook Connect, giving you some simple code to add to your site where your login form goes today. With just a few clicks, visitors to your site can sign up using the identity from a number of sites (Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo, Google Mail, AOL to name a few), or continue to register using your existing sign up process. If they come in using identity from another site, they can also bring over existing contacts from many of these and, in some instances, post back comments to the other social network. Everything that Facebook Connect can do; and pretty much all that was demo'ed by Google and Plaxo recently.
If there are other solutions that enable you to do so much so easily, I haven't yet found them. It's possible that either Google's solutions in this space or Facebook Connect will get this good in time, but who wants to sit and wait when the user benefits are there to enjoy now? And sites that HAVE taken the leap report a significant increase is user registrations.
We've yet to try JanRain RPX on our site, but I can certainly recommend it is worth a look by anyone who has also been watching the Google/Facebook battle.
It seems you can have both and that the winners can be you and your site visitors!
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
My last post on data portability drew some interesting comments. Not only were specific implementations of OpenID defended by Kevin Marks at Google -- and I concede that there are some that are much easier to use than others, whilst providing pretty rich functionality -- but I got some interesting direct contacts.
Like many, we've been holding off implementing either OpenID or Facebook Connect until we see which solution people (site owners and visitors) are favouring; and until they also get a bit easier to implement and use. It seems I needn't have done so, however, because I got an e-mail from the guys at JanRain of Portland, Oregon, who have a solution that enables you to log in to either through a single and smart looking interface.
Their website describes well how RPX works but, in essence, they provide a hosted solution for authenticating your site users using OpenID or Facebook Connect, giving you some simple code to add to your site where your login form goes today. With just a few clicks, visitors to your site can sign up using the identity from a number of sites (Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo, Google Mail, AOL to name a few), or continue to register using your existing sign up process. If they come in using identity from another site, they can also bring over existing contacts from many of these and, in some instances, post back comments to the other social network. Everything that Facebook Connect can do; and pretty much all that was demo'ed by Google and Plaxo recently.
If there are other solutions that enable you to do so much so easily, I haven't yet found them. It's possible that either Google's solutions in this space or Facebook Connect will get this good in time, but who wants to sit and wait when the user benefits are there to enjoy now? And sites that HAVE taken the leap report a significant increase is user registrations.
We've yet to try JanRain RPX on our site, but I can certainly recommend it is worth a look by anyone who has also been watching the Google/Facebook battle.
It seems you can have both and that the winners can be you and your site visitors!
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Friday 13 February 2009, 8:25 AM
Google and Data Portability: a two pronged approach or fork in the road?
Google announces enhancements to Google Friend Connect while also showing another way of remote login and bringing over contacts at an OpenID meeting hosted by Facebook... Confused? Me too.
Oh it used to be so simple. Google came out early as a supporter of open standards in Data Portability, turning over its various initiatives in this space, like OpenSocial, to non-profit for greater good. Facebook took an opposing view and launched Facebook Connect, enabling webmasters everywhere to add code to their sites giving Facebook users the ability to login to any site using their existing identity and of posting their activity back to Facebook. Google answered with its own equivalent, Google Friend Connect. People everywhere debated which was better and came out declaring which camp was getting their support support (by the way, although Facebook Connect is more functional, Google Friend Connect one it on open standards support).
Fast forward six months and things look different. Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect still exist (and get enhancements, see below), but Facebook has since joined the OpenID crowd -- although it is yet to make FBC OpenID compliant. Weirder still, Google, seemingly having won over its main rival in the space to its way of thinking, now seems to be promoting two alternatives to cracking the same nut.
First off, Google Friend Connect hasn't gained much traction since it was announced last year, mainly because it doesn't do much. Yes, people can log into your site using their Google identity (as used for GMail, Adwords etc.) but the GFC elements are really standalone on a site, with no integration with any existing user identities you may have. In other words, if you already get people to log in then they now do it twice. And you don't get any of the credentials that go with the identity, as they are only ever really logging into GFC, albeit on your site. Mainly to comment and add ratings. Pretty lame stuff compared to a more functional and useful Facebook Connect.
Well Google is attempting to make GFC even more enticing for website owners by enabling the addition of a "Social Bar", which can appear at the top or bottom or your site's pages, providing the login, commenting and ratings capabilities within it. It can be deployed on single web pages or across the whole site. Its aim is to make GFC's features easier to apply across a site without being too intrusive. I've taken a look and it seems to do that job well, although it doesn't add any new features to the capability set (more info here: http://googlesocialweb.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-bar-for-your-site.html). Although we have GFC support on my our own WeCanDo.BIZ website, we won't be adding the Social Bar as I don't wish it to be that intrusive -- we have our own login which takes presendence as it has more functionality behind it. I can see how the GFC Social Bar would work for sites without any user accounts on it currently, however -- it's a quick and easy way to add social elements to a simple website.
With this initiative underway, it was perhaps surprising then that at the recent regular OpenID get together, this time hosted by Facebook, Google and social network aggregator Plaxo showed a hybrid of OpenID, OAuth and Google Contacts API which does a much better job of achieving what most people expected Google Friend Connect might offer them.
In essence the new OpenID workflow enables users of other sites -- it was Plaxo in this instance -- to login to OpenID, a portable identity they should be able to use anywhere, with just a few clicks and no need for passwords, an important advancement compared to the complex usernames and passing back and forth that has hampered OpenID's adoption to date. Further, during the authentication process, you also have the option of specifying you want to bring your Google Contacts (whatever THEY are!) over to the site to establish a relationship with them on the new site. Just what everyone has been asking for, although many would rather see the repository of user identities and contacts -- the "social graph" -- held by a trusted independent third party. More information on the hybrid here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_plaxo_openid_oauth_usability.php.
So which of these should website owners be using to "socialise" their websites? Well, OpenID implementations available today should be avoided as they are just too complex. Facebook Connect is the only thing you can use today enabling true authentication into a sites own login using an existing identity with the ability to bring existing connections, and it's nice and simple -- but the chance it may be re-architected to support OpenID concerns me that anything you add to your site today may need replacing soon. The new way to authenticate using OpenID as shown by Google with Plaxo has great potential, although Google hasn't released the code to developers to enable the est of us to do it -- it's just a demo for now. Which means they'll continue to flog Google Friend Connect in the meantime, possibly with a limited shelf life if their plans do include releasing the much better alternative above.
My recommendation? It's likely that OpenID and OAuth will win out, but hold off for now until the main movers and shakers decide how its best done. Moving on this now will mean a short term and compromised solution when everyone else seems happy to sit and wait.
I'd love to read your own thoughts on this.
UPDATE: Just read some further articles on the OpenID User Experience summit hosted by Facebook and noted an interesting presentation by Google's Breno de Medeiros. His subject? How there needs to be a neutral 3rd party method of figuring out who users' identity providers are without asking them explicitly, something like how the DNS system works. I agree in part -- although, as posted above, most people would rather see the neutral 3rd party issuing the identities and holding the social graph. If no one can agree on that then a DNS type approach helps. This does, unfortunately, muddy the Data Portability waters further though -- and make the likelihood that we'll see a stable way forward in the short-term less likely. Keep holding off!
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Oh it used to be so simple. Google came out early as a supporter of open standards in Data Portability, turning over its various initiatives in this space, like OpenSocial, to non-profit for greater good. Facebook took an opposing view and launched Facebook Connect, enabling webmasters everywhere to add code to their sites giving Facebook users the ability to login to any site using their existing identity and of posting their activity back to Facebook. Google answered with its own equivalent, Google Friend Connect. People everywhere debated which was better and came out declaring which camp was getting their support support (by the way, although Facebook Connect is more functional, Google Friend Connect one it on open standards support).
Fast forward six months and things look different. Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect still exist (and get enhancements, see below), but Facebook has since joined the OpenID crowd -- although it is yet to make FBC OpenID compliant. Weirder still, Google, seemingly having won over its main rival in the space to its way of thinking, now seems to be promoting two alternatives to cracking the same nut.
First off, Google Friend Connect hasn't gained much traction since it was announced last year, mainly because it doesn't do much. Yes, people can log into your site using their Google identity (as used for GMail, Adwords etc.) but the GFC elements are really standalone on a site, with no integration with any existing user identities you may have. In other words, if you already get people to log in then they now do it twice. And you don't get any of the credentials that go with the identity, as they are only ever really logging into GFC, albeit on your site. Mainly to comment and add ratings. Pretty lame stuff compared to a more functional and useful Facebook Connect.
Well Google is attempting to make GFC even more enticing for website owners by enabling the addition of a "Social Bar", which can appear at the top or bottom or your site's pages, providing the login, commenting and ratings capabilities within it. It can be deployed on single web pages or across the whole site. Its aim is to make GFC's features easier to apply across a site without being too intrusive. I've taken a look and it seems to do that job well, although it doesn't add any new features to the capability set (more info here: http://googlesocialweb.blogspot.com/2009/02/social-bar-for-your-site.html). Although we have GFC support on my our own WeCanDo.BIZ website, we won't be adding the Social Bar as I don't wish it to be that intrusive -- we have our own login which takes presendence as it has more functionality behind it. I can see how the GFC Social Bar would work for sites without any user accounts on it currently, however -- it's a quick and easy way to add social elements to a simple website.
With this initiative underway, it was perhaps surprising then that at the recent regular OpenID get together, this time hosted by Facebook, Google and social network aggregator Plaxo showed a hybrid of OpenID, OAuth and Google Contacts API which does a much better job of achieving what most people expected Google Friend Connect might offer them.
In essence the new OpenID workflow enables users of other sites -- it was Plaxo in this instance -- to login to OpenID, a portable identity they should be able to use anywhere, with just a few clicks and no need for passwords, an important advancement compared to the complex usernames and passing back and forth that has hampered OpenID's adoption to date. Further, during the authentication process, you also have the option of specifying you want to bring your Google Contacts (whatever THEY are!) over to the site to establish a relationship with them on the new site. Just what everyone has been asking for, although many would rather see the repository of user identities and contacts -- the "social graph" -- held by a trusted independent third party. More information on the hybrid here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_plaxo_openid_oauth_usability.php.
So which of these should website owners be using to "socialise" their websites? Well, OpenID implementations available today should be avoided as they are just too complex. Facebook Connect is the only thing you can use today enabling true authentication into a sites own login using an existing identity with the ability to bring existing connections, and it's nice and simple -- but the chance it may be re-architected to support OpenID concerns me that anything you add to your site today may need replacing soon. The new way to authenticate using OpenID as shown by Google with Plaxo has great potential, although Google hasn't released the code to developers to enable the est of us to do it -- it's just a demo for now. Which means they'll continue to flog Google Friend Connect in the meantime, possibly with a limited shelf life if their plans do include releasing the much better alternative above.
My recommendation? It's likely that OpenID and OAuth will win out, but hold off for now until the main movers and shakers decide how its best done. Moving on this now will mean a short term and compromised solution when everyone else seems happy to sit and wait.
I'd love to read your own thoughts on this.
UPDATE: Just read some further articles on the OpenID User Experience summit hosted by Facebook and noted an interesting presentation by Google's Breno de Medeiros. His subject? How there needs to be a neutral 3rd party method of figuring out who users' identity providers are without asking them explicitly, something like how the DNS system works. I agree in part -- although, as posted above, most people would rather see the neutral 3rd party issuing the identities and holding the social graph. If no one can agree on that then a DNS type approach helps. This does, unfortunately, muddy the Data Portability waters further though -- and make the likelihood that we'll see a stable way forward in the short-term less likely. Keep holding off!
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Friday 6 February 2009, 12:00 PM
Sleeping With The Enemy: Facebook surprises all by hosting OpenID summit
These are crazy times in which we live and nothing seems crazier than Facebook welcoming Google, IBM, PayPal and Yahoo to discuss OpenID!
When I read the article by Caroline McCarthy on CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10157980-36.html) I thought it might be a joke. But it's not 1 April. It would seem that Facebook really has signed up to the OpenID foundation and, further, will be hosting a summit later this month.
Now regular readers of my blog will know that OpenID and Google's initiaves to make it usable, such as Google Friend Connect, have been going head-to-head with Facebook's own social web operability answer Facebook Connect. With an announcement from one side, so comes an immediate salvo from the other. It's been my opinion that Facebook Connect is superior in most ways, although lacking the "open-ness" of its not-for-profit-but-in-the-interests-of-the-greater-good rival. This last point has put many off from going the Facebook Connect route. Now it would seem Zuckerberg and crew are keen to change that (more in Caroline's article).
Of course, this may all be a clever ploy to derail the OpenID initiative; or at least try and keep it one step behind Facebook's own efforts. But it could also mean a truly common standard for a login across the whole social web, with "friends" also being portable across networks and sites. Something everyone would welcome, site owners and users alike.
Still, it seems an odd move in many ways, in spite of claims that Facebook has always had its fans of OpenID internally (if that's so, why not develop Facebook Connect to open standards -- which have been around for more than a year -- in the first place?).
I wonder whether the recent decision by the W3C to start a Social Web Interoperability Incubator Group to steer a direction in protocols used for interoperability among social networks (which is going to work with the Open Web Foundation, the DiSo Project, and DataPortability.org, all of whom advocate OpenID and OAuth) had any influence of Facebook's decision to cosy up to their arch-rivals?
What do you think?
We were going to deploy facebook Connect on the WeCanDo.BIZ website, but I feel inclined to hold back now until its clearer on whether it will continue in its current form.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
When I read the article by Caroline McCarthy on CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10157980-36.html) I thought it might be a joke. But it's not 1 April. It would seem that Facebook really has signed up to the OpenID foundation and, further, will be hosting a summit later this month.
Now regular readers of my blog will know that OpenID and Google's initiaves to make it usable, such as Google Friend Connect, have been going head-to-head with Facebook's own social web operability answer Facebook Connect. With an announcement from one side, so comes an immediate salvo from the other. It's been my opinion that Facebook Connect is superior in most ways, although lacking the "open-ness" of its not-for-profit-but-in-the-interests-of-the-greater-good rival. This last point has put many off from going the Facebook Connect route. Now it would seem Zuckerberg and crew are keen to change that (more in Caroline's article).
Of course, this may all be a clever ploy to derail the OpenID initiative; or at least try and keep it one step behind Facebook's own efforts. But it could also mean a truly common standard for a login across the whole social web, with "friends" also being portable across networks and sites. Something everyone would welcome, site owners and users alike.
Still, it seems an odd move in many ways, in spite of claims that Facebook has always had its fans of OpenID internally (if that's so, why not develop Facebook Connect to open standards -- which have been around for more than a year -- in the first place?).
I wonder whether the recent decision by the W3C to start a Social Web Interoperability Incubator Group to steer a direction in protocols used for interoperability among social networks (which is going to work with the Open Web Foundation, the DiSo Project, and DataPortability.org, all of whom advocate OpenID and OAuth) had any influence of Facebook's decision to cosy up to their arch-rivals?
What do you think?
We were going to deploy facebook Connect on the WeCanDo.BIZ website, but I feel inclined to hold back now until its clearer on whether it will continue in its current form.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Saturday 31 January 2009, 12:42 PM
Unified login, CRM 2.0 take small steps forward
Important announcements this week to help OpenID catch Facebook Connect; and to help bring Facebook and Salesforce.com closer to delivering CRM 2.0.
I wrote at the end of last year about how Facebook Connect was winning the race to get close to a unified login across the web, where one set of credentials will take you anywhere. It was not because anyone wants Facebook to win this battle -- they don't, in fact, because Facebook remains proprietary, owns your data once entered and is a long way from being open and fair -- but because OpenID has always been hard to use and Google Friend Connect is a little lame in what it offers. Well the game has moved on yet again.
This week Google and Plaxo have announced that they've brough together OpenID, OAuth and the Google Contacts API to enable much simpler sign in, with the ability to bring contacts with you when you join new networks too.
(A great description of how it works can be found here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/10036)
This certainly gets close to matching Facebook Connect in most way, but misses out on two key features. First, there are no details of how other sites on we internet can use this functionality to benefit their members (like they can with FBC, albeit with some pain to get it implemented). Secondly, Plaxo and Google lack a central site with a common contact list and where details of activities on remote sites can be posted back to. OK, Google has quite a lot of e-mail addresses and Plaxo has 20 million users willing to volunteer more than that, but even combined the lack the cache of a network of 150 million people and 20% of the population logging in to check what is happening with the contacts they have (activities from FBC sites could be included in the Facebook newsfeed, driving traffic).
It's a step in the right direction -- and one to be applauded given how much more open this solution is compared to Facebook's -- but Zuckerberg still leads the field in this area.
Another important step this week was the involvement of a third small party in beinging together a flagship CRM 2.0 exmaple that everyone can relate to.
Software vendor Appirio, which announced an offering called Referral Management Solution, a set of technologies to help Salesforce.com exploit Facebook for viral marketing and employee recruitment.
The tools search friend profiles and tell users which connections may be best for sales campaigns, marketing promotions or to approach as candidates for roles. It's an important step towards what I have previously called "the perfect business application" where a CRM system can mine the data people happily volunteer on social networks.
Appirio went for Facebook first because of its scale -- no doubt the promise of tapping into Facebook's 150 million users was in their mind when they priced the solution at $25,000 for an annual subscription -- you need volumes for that to be economic for most organisations.
If the cost doesn't make you question this as a way forward, privacy concerns might (although these can be overcome on Facebook by customers opting in to an application, as with all other data sharing apps), as may a question whether the "right" data is on the networks to be exploited in the first place. Whereas Facebook is great for consumer contact, it wouldn't work so well for companies with a B2B focus -- but then LinkedIn, which is what most people would think of, actually stores and shares very little contact information.
What do you think of how these two technologies will change the way people use Web 2.0?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
I wrote at the end of last year about how Facebook Connect was winning the race to get close to a unified login across the web, where one set of credentials will take you anywhere. It was not because anyone wants Facebook to win this battle -- they don't, in fact, because Facebook remains proprietary, owns your data once entered and is a long way from being open and fair -- but because OpenID has always been hard to use and Google Friend Connect is a little lame in what it offers. Well the game has moved on yet again.
This week Google and Plaxo have announced that they've brough together OpenID, OAuth and the Google Contacts API to enable much simpler sign in, with the ability to bring contacts with you when you join new networks too.
(A great description of how it works can be found here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/10036)
This certainly gets close to matching Facebook Connect in most way, but misses out on two key features. First, there are no details of how other sites on we internet can use this functionality to benefit their members (like they can with FBC, albeit with some pain to get it implemented). Secondly, Plaxo and Google lack a central site with a common contact list and where details of activities on remote sites can be posted back to. OK, Google has quite a lot of e-mail addresses and Plaxo has 20 million users willing to volunteer more than that, but even combined the lack the cache of a network of 150 million people and 20% of the population logging in to check what is happening with the contacts they have (activities from FBC sites could be included in the Facebook newsfeed, driving traffic).
It's a step in the right direction -- and one to be applauded given how much more open this solution is compared to Facebook's -- but Zuckerberg still leads the field in this area.
Another important step this week was the involvement of a third small party in beinging together a flagship CRM 2.0 exmaple that everyone can relate to.
Software vendor Appirio, which announced an offering called Referral Management Solution, a set of technologies to help Salesforce.com exploit Facebook for viral marketing and employee recruitment.
The tools search friend profiles and tell users which connections may be best for sales campaigns, marketing promotions or to approach as candidates for roles. It's an important step towards what I have previously called "the perfect business application" where a CRM system can mine the data people happily volunteer on social networks.
Appirio went for Facebook first because of its scale -- no doubt the promise of tapping into Facebook's 150 million users was in their mind when they priced the solution at $25,000 for an annual subscription -- you need volumes for that to be economic for most organisations.
If the cost doesn't make you question this as a way forward, privacy concerns might (although these can be overcome on Facebook by customers opting in to an application, as with all other data sharing apps), as may a question whether the "right" data is on the networks to be exploited in the first place. Whereas Facebook is great for consumer contact, it wouldn't work so well for companies with a B2B focus -- but then LinkedIn, which is what most people would think of, actually stores and shares very little contact information.
What do you think of how these two technologies will change the way people use Web 2.0?
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
