I wouldn’t worry about the API making all networks the same.

Google appears to be positioning itself less and less as a search engine — and more and more as a data server (note that the data being gathered is depicted as quite simple [cheap]; in contrast, the data retrieval processing is depicted as rather difficult [expensive]). The argument seems to be that Google is willing to do this to save your time/effort/money — and it only needs a couple data points that are purportedly not-at-all difficult to share…. Fascinating!

Perhaps the entire Internet could be simplified this way — that way, no one would have to worry about maintaining servers at all: Google could simply “take care of” everything!

;D nmw

I checked out madfairy — I would have several recommendations for that site (none technical, all more about about usability). Apart from that, I do not pay much attention to blogspot.com (I prefer blogspot.biz ….

Nobody is being forced to visit forced to visit ANY site (e.g. blogspot.com or whatever) — generally, you get what you pay for. People who are looking for a free ride may just get “taken for a ride” — whatever….

I as a user like to stay in control of how much personal data I am sharing. If I feel that my data might be hijacked or mined for marketing purposes, then I may simply hold back on disclosing alot about myself (unless I WANT to be marketed to and/or hope that my data might “infect” the web .

I think it is great that people can choose for themselves which social networks to join and/or leave. Granted, MySpace.COM may currently be a large social network (note, however, that a recent Hitwise chart [see e.g. http://itne.ws ] might be cause for alarm

http://battellemedia.com/archives/004062.php#comment_125748

(I guess this one would have been more “on topic” — oops!

I am the person suing Google for monopolization.

Carl E. Person
antitrust and civil rights attorney

1. Are these APIs / Protocols going to be standardized by any international standards body (ECMA, OSI, IETF, etc) or will the always be under Google’s control?

2. What will the terms of use be? Eg, if I want my social network host to support OpenSocial, what are the license terms to implement OS?

3. Will Google provide any implementation of the protocols for (server side | client side | both | neither)? If so, how will they be licensed?

Personally I *think* this sounds like a good thing in general, but until they actually release whatever it is they’re releasing, I worry that a lot of us are putting the cart before the horse.

Also, if anybody is interested in building a truly decentralized, federated social networking platform (Open Source, of course) see https://openqabal.dev.java.net.

When will the smartest geeks in the world learn…….

Isn’t this just how they all got together against microsoft, and google ended up owning the search-space; or is it meant to replace openID, sit alongside it; or is it like the mobile phone industry where different companies agree to standards to expand the general market-But ultimately, just one combined question: Who owns it and are the other non-google partners equitable in the venture?

In this one “get together” to create a unified bulwalk against facebook, Google get even more access to the information going through the (inter-)network, then it’s already able to have.

Kind regards,

Shakir Razak

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t fully grok the initiative, either. I haven’t had the chance to read all the relevant information.

But once again, even you admit that there is going to be this ability to write once, run anywhere. That’s what I am talking about. I’m not talking about wanting to retain profile (data) walls. I am talking about wanting to retain “rules of interaction” (code) walls. If anything, I wouldn’t mind a linking of data between the social networks. But I do not want to have a linking of code between social networks.

Why? Because code is the fabric (to borrow nmw’s word above) that stitches together the social nature of that network. The code, the “rules of the game” if you will, is what gives the social network its character. If all of a sudden the code becomes homogenized across all social networks, then each individual network will lose its distinctive character. And that, for lack of a better word, sucks.

Let me make an analogy to sports. Football, baseball, basketball, etc. each have their own separate, distinct “code bases”, by which I mean the set of rules and instructions that governs the nature of interaction between players. These code bases are actually limitations, walled gardens. These walled gardens preserve the character of the sport. It doesn’t matter if you get 4 downs in football. In baseball you still only get 3 outs.

Now, imagine if these lines started to blur, if the walls started to merge, through some “OpenSport API”. Imagine if some league commissioner could “write a rule once, apply it anywhere”. Then all of a sudden you’d have basketball’s 3-second rule (no offensive players for more than 3 seconds in the lane) applied to baseball: No batter would be able to remain in the batter’s box for more than 3 seconds. Batters would have to jump into the box, quickly swing, and then jump out again! Or imagine if basketball was suddenly affected by a football rule: After three attempts to move the basketball forward, a player can now punt-kick the basketball to the other team.

Ridiculous!

No, we keep the lines clear, we keep the gardens walled, because sometimes some “applications” in one game do not make any sense in another game. The ability to write once, NOT run anywhere is actually an advantage!

However, I see no problem with the data actually being able to freely migrate and move around. Again, the sports analogy would be Bo Jackson, who played both professional baseball and football in the same year. He had no problem being a member of two separate, distinct “networks”. It’s just that when he was in his baseball network, he didn’t start applying his football network rules, i.e. he didn’t start tackling the first baseman in order to get a single.

That’s all I’m really saying here. I actually think the ability to write once, run anywhere is a distinct disadvantage for social networks. You go on to a network for a specific purpose, and as that purpose starts to blur, the network loses its value. Not for the owners of the network. But for me, the individual participant in that network. I really don’t want to have to start turning down “zombie bite requests” on LinkedIn, the same way I do on Facebook.