July 3rd, 2007
Deconstructing Facebook Platform
The discussion about Facebook Platform being the new AOL, i.e. redundant to the platform we already have called the Internet, has rung true for me, despite my initial enthusiasm. I finally figured out exactly why — Facebook Platform applications are appended, not integrated.
For example — why can’t I use Twitter IN PLACE OF the Facebook Status application? They serve essentially the same function — if I already use Twitter, why should I be forced to double post in order to update my friends?
Here’s Facebook’s status application at the top of my profile page:
I can update my status right on the profile page, i.e. it’s fully integrated:
And here’s the Twitter application buried at the bottom of my profile page, next to the message wall, which doesn’t inter-operate with Twitter either.
If I try to move the twitter app up the page, it doesn’t let me put it above the Mini-Feed. To use Twitter, unlike Facebook Status, I have to go to another page which feels like a frame circa 1997 — why not just go to Twitter to use Twitter?
That problem is in sharp relief with Zoho’s new Facebook App:
Every link takes you off of Facebook to the Zoho site — so the app is just links to Zoho inside of Facebook — what’s the point? I went to share a document on those separate Zoho pages, assuming that would be wired into the Facebook share feature, but it’s not — it just asks for email addresses:
True integration would be allowing me to REPLACE the Facebook Notes application with Zoho.
Here are the key questions that Facebook developers and users should be asking themselves:
Developers
- Does my application actually integrate with Facebook, or is it effectively just a link ad for my app on Facebook — or sticking my app in a Facebook frame?
- Am I deriving as much value from having my application in the walled garden as Facebook is by keeping its users in the walled garden to use my app?
Users
- Is life better/easier/more productive using/accessing an app inside of Facebook rather than going to the app directly?
- What’s the advantage of Facebook applications over tabbed browsing?
Powered by 
Design by 
You’ve nailed it on this one. As someone who’s still not convinced that everyone needs to know what I’m doing at any given moment, updating Twitter AND Facebook AND my Google Talk status message makes for a serious disincentive.
Still looking for the app that will post to all three for me. Then I can be narcissistic and lazy…
Personally, I don’t have any great desire to use applications within Facebook. What Facebook has become for me is kind of a glue holding together the vast majority of the web 2.0 apps I use.
In the case of Twitter, I update Twitter the same way I normally do, but it shows up in my friends’ news feeds - even of those who don’t use Twitter themselves. That’s valuable to me.
Similarly, I have no desire to use Digg/del.icio.us/flickr/last.fm within Facebook. But it’s great that they’re all on my profile page, where my friends can see them without needing to join those services or friend me on those services.
I agree with you that a deeper level of integration would be nice, but meh, it doesn’t really bother me.
Well said. The best apps are those that enhance the value of Facebook itself and provide additional insight into what your friends are doing (e.g. Change.org or Causes that provides “Facebook-like” functionality for third parties; or Newsvine’s Election app). Alternatively, it’s an online identity aggregator, the easiest way to mash up my blogposts, del.icio.us posts, tweets, etc.
But the duplicativeness of the live feed is getting to be seriously annoying. I post my del.icio.us links to my blog, to Twitter, and to Facebook, which means one link could show up three times in my live feed.
In reverse order:
Patrick - you can use the setting on your app to make it invisible to your live feed. So, if all your links go on your blog, only enable your blog updates to update the live feed.
Eric - you wrote, “What Facebook has become for me is kind of a glue holding together the vast majority of the web 2.0 apps I use.” There’s no value in that for you? Many of the web apps I use are overglorified “features” not “full products”. I enjoy having one place to manage them.
Scott - Twitter’s official app is a bad example. Take a look at Yahoo! Music’s amazing Facebook integration to see the power of what this platform can do. And if you want Twitter to update your Facebook ststus, use FBTwit instead:
http://apps.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2296623322&b
Hashim,
All very useful information, thank you. But it all amounts to, “Hey, you stupid users, didn’t you know that you can do X?” The problem is that if we’re “stupid,” there are millions more like us. For an app and a platform for apps to be successful, it can’t let users fall into these mis-use traps.
Hashim,
I know I can do that, but my links post once a day to my blog, but continuously to my facebook feed. And what about the Twitter-exclusives, like the Twitter-gram I just sent.
There’s not an easy answer to this (save for cumbersome Gmail-like filters) but the point about having to do stuff 3 times is correct. Though I do give Facebook credit to some extent for unifying my Web 2.0 presences into one.
Hashim -
The thing is, all these apps are only a tab away anyway. It’s no extra work for me to go to Del.icio.us or Twitter in a tab to do what I need doing, where I get a better, more full featured interface than can possibly be offered in a widgetized Facebook application.
What I appreciate about this stuff is that anything I do in these applications are automatically updated on my Facebook profile. It streamlines information sharing.
I think the biggest advantage here is that applications on Facebook integrate completely with all of your friends, and if you’re a user, like me, who has the vast majority of your social network represented on Facebook, then all of these applications become immeasurably more valuable. Only a small percentage of my friends use digg, del.icio.us, and Twitter — so, going off Facebook and using these apps in their native setting just isn’t that useful for me if what I’m interested in is my own personal friends and what they’re paying attention to.
That said, I am, thus far, underwhelmed by most of the applications that have been created. I think (well…I hope) that there are many more to come that are much more sophisticated than what is currently available.
I like these kinds of video app articles. Keep it up. Just stumbled on it. I don’t see too many people covering the apps–I’ve tried a couple and some have been huge lately (iLike) Tim
[…] Carp dissects the Facebook platform - coming to the conclusion […]
As much as this article is important, it also pinpoints a vital feature of integrating and aggregating 3rd party services in one place. This is actually what G.ho.st (http://G.ho.st The Global Hosted Operating SysTem) is trying to perform (though early stages right now) for heavy web2.0 apps users. It’s a Virtual Computer that tends to perform as a real operating system for Web2.0 Applications.
Now let’s hold this thought for a moment and consider Windows as an example. When I right-click on my desktop and choose to “New/Microsoft Office Word Document”, the operating system (Windows) tends to create a documents that opens in Microsoft Word. So when I double-click on it, Windows launches Microsoft Word to open that document for me.
Here is what G.ho.st does: it allows the user to create a “New Google Document” in it’s Virtual File System, and actually opens Google Docs&Sheets service (using single-in) to edit that document which is by default stored at Google.
The Virtual File System holds representation of the Google Doc as well as Flickr Photos, YouTube Videos, Yahoo Shopping items, alongside your favorite Bookmarks!… This is actually what integration and aggregation is all about. Having your web items arranged and organized in folders next to each other.