Comments
6 CommentsApparently, every new social network that comes up is either following the "format/formulae" of the two biggest names out there. MySpace and/or Facebook. This would have to apply for my current network of choice, My.9 from 9Rules. While MySpace caters to pretty much anyone who thinks they know something about HTML, and FaceBook wont let you join up without some arbitrarily difficult processes including hardly ever supporting your particular college (or maybe that was my situation, audible laugh), if you and two other buddies create a social networking site that becomes popular, it is tagged as a descendant of MySpace.
At least, that's what GigaOM says.
I'm sure that in a rhetorical sense, there is a difference between the phrases 'commodity' and 'feature'. I chose the former, GigaOM chose the latter. That, I reserve the right to say is completely irrelevant.
For now.
However, the one synonymous virtue of social networks hold regardless of host, creator, or underlying technologies is the idea of collaboration. Of course, I still don't see anything similar between MySpace and My.9. Sure, you've got friends, you've got messages, but is any social network any different from the master social network, email? If anything, MySpace has followed the format of email. You've got a contacts list, you have the ability to send messages en masse, if someone sends you a message, you can forward that message to other people.
Back to rhetoric. What's the difference between a commodity and a feature? A lot. In a mostly economic sense, commodities are valued for sale, purchase, profit. They're not as easily accessible as entire entities (due to the labor required, I suppose), as opposed to features, which are aspects that make up a whole. Compare it to the phrase all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. Commodities are whole, features make up the whole. Commodities are valued, features if left out, will make consumers go without, while grumbling about it.
So..I'm wanting to say then, that friends lists, mass message queue, and the ability to share your mugshot are features of a social network as a whole; as a commodity. I disagree with you GigaOM. Social networks are not features. Last.FM, the site itself is a social network. It doesn't have many other features that make the social network aspect of the concept of Last.FM stand out as a separate entity. It has tools that continue to turn the gears of features not found elsewhere. So, again, as I did in the last post, I'm going to end this post with math
features + features = commodities
commodities + features = ideas
ideas = collaboration
collaboration = innovation
Good night.
Mike
Written Feb. 12, 2007 / Report /
One of the things that has upset us for a long time is the idea of "social network lock-in" where you have to start yet another photo album, upload yet another video, etc. The big idea currently is that "some company" should come up with an open profile aggregator, and for now, the companies that have done this to date have merely done so to market themselves as your "Open ID" on the internet. Having a singular profile that branches out to everything else isn't a sexy idea, nor does it actually draw an audience who is having a massive problem with their various IDs, so the approach these companies are taking (People Aggregator, Claim ID) is wrong. They are pulling your information from multiple sources *as* their main feature, and there is no other impetus for using such a service.
What we're trying to do with my.9rules isn't just to bring together people's online content they already have, but to do that *plus* other things and simply make the profile aggregation a feature and not the end-all-be-all of my.9rules. Just like an online to-do list should merely be a feature integrated into a larger, more versatile application, an online profile aggregator should merely be a feature of a larger ecosystem for people who are technically savvy enough to have Flickr accounts, del.icio.us, a blog, etc. A to-do list is not sexy, an online profile aggregator is not sexy, but an online profile aggregator as a subset of a larger whole is definitely sexy :)
Scrivs
Written Feb. 12, 2007 / Report /
I'm pretty sure we agree, but just to make sure let me see if I get your reasoning. Om was saying that social networks should be features of existing sites and other features since they don't add much value to anything. You are saying if you include aspects of social networking to your site then your site itself becomes a social network.
You can call my.9r a social network. It is going to happen because we do things other networks do, except we like to think we actually add the social aspect to the site. Notes give you that opportunity to actually converse with other individuals while getting to know them. On a smaller scale you have Groups which some other network incorporate, but those seem more like just joining the cool club and never coming back. Kind of like adding badges to your boy scout shirt.
dook
Written Feb. 12, 2007 / Report /
I'll answer both of you this way. The article at OM reminds me of a blog entry I wrote a long time ago, that I may rewrite here on my.9 about the iPod. I walk into Circuit City and see a banner that reads "MP3 players and iPods". Essentially, for the purpose it serves, an iPod IS an MP3 player. However, understanding that it converts your music to AAC, it's somewhat not.
How many people who buy iPods actually realize this? About 70% is my guess.
Another instance of incorrect iPod recognition, I had a senior citizen ask me if my first generation iPod shuffle (which I am superiorly more fond of design wise) was a radio. I simply said yes, in an attempt to avoid a long explanation of what it was and how it worked. When writing that particular blog post, I ended up saying
"I would rather someone call an iPod a radio than call an iPod an iPod".
I'm using that as an analogy for the juxtaposition of social networks and friendly websites. Then again, I can't say if there is an 'in-stone' definition of what makes a website a social network or not. One person could call my.9 a network, another a social network. It's back to the paragraph where I try to understand the difference in terminology, and that's why I brought up the iPod/MP3 Player/Radio deal.
It's a very ambiguous topic.
Scrivs
Written Feb. 12, 2007 / Report /
So then wouldn't it just be better to call an iPod a music player? In that case refer to 9rules as simply a Community.
Written Feb. 22, 2007 / Edit / Report /
There are a lot of important points flying about here. I think that there is this generalised image of online social networks/communities. There are only so many things you can do on these types of sites, which is why anyone trying to do their own can be seen as copying. They're not, it's just the the others managed to add those features and call them their own first.
What separates site from site is the value of it to a person. What is the value? well, i'd say for me that 9rules seems a lot tighter as a community. Every person will have their own view of what they value from a site, that's mine. Plus, you get to talk to the founders so it gives you a sense of collaboration, contribution and ownership. These are soft subjects as I call them (theoretical at heart). When it come to the technical aspect, 9rules only has a couple more features that it requires as I see it. One is already discussed with Tyme which was being able to view all of your posts and responses. That's it though. I think it's a perfect clost knit set of communities.
Brilliant work guys
rickcurran
Written Feb. 22, 2007 / Report /
I agree with Matthew, I think there does seem a tight community on 9Rules, and it is good that it's not a faceless corporation running it (I don't mind at all having Mike, Scrivs and Time as friends when I signed up, I'll keep them as friends unlike Tom from MySpace ;) )
It helps a lot too that the whole thing doesn't look like it was hit with the ugly stick! ;) [cough, myspace again...]