<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I Do Not Get Facebook</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/</link>
	<description>Don't Be So Serious</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: fschonholz</title>
		<link>http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>fschonholz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-69</guid>
		<description>Jon:

There are two parts to the technology equation. One is the technology as a play and strategically positioning it for value and growth. The other is the actual application and applicability of the technology.

On the applicability, to a large extent is a matter of preference in how you want to interact with a particular ecosystem. You may like it while I do not. Or the available features are good enough for you and not for me. There is no write or wrong. Just preferences.

On the strategic play, what is it that Facebook wants to be? If it wants to be the holder of the social graph and only that, then somebody will come along that will do it better or different or what not. But if they want to be a true platform, then they need to appeal to you and to me. You and I are looking for different things. And a true platform should support us both.

So, my point in this post was to the fact that Facebook has a great chance to compete with Google. They got all the components and specially a captive audience that they can leverage in many ways. Plus, they are funding and propelling its expansion. But they are still missing the productivity apps where I can not only use word but share it with my network. They can turn the social graph into true productivity. But they need more than a "send me a beer" application. They have a great starting point. I want to see what they do with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon:</p>
<p>There are two parts to the technology equation. One is the technology as a play and strategically positioning it for value and growth. The other is the actual application and applicability of the technology.</p>
<p>On the applicability, to a large extent is a matter of preference in how you want to interact with a particular ecosystem. You may like it while I do not. Or the available features are good enough for you and not for me. There is no write or wrong. Just preferences.</p>
<p>On the strategic play, what is it that Facebook wants to be? If it wants to be the holder of the social graph and only that, then somebody will come along that will do it better or different or what not. But if they want to be a true platform, then they need to appeal to you and to me. You and I are looking for different things. And a true platform should support us both.</p>
<p>So, my point in this post was to the fact that Facebook has a great chance to compete with Google. They got all the components and specially a captive audience that they can leverage in many ways. Plus, they are funding and propelling its expansion. But they are still missing the productivity apps where I can not only use word but share it with my network. They can turn the social graph into true productivity. But they need more than a &#8220;send me a beer&#8221; application. They have a great starting point. I want to see what they do with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Wow - I can't say I disagree, but I still don't think you get it - which is surprising you are freakin smart.  First, Facebook appeals to a group of people that are the hardest of hard core users - college kids who literally use Facebook more then any other application.  What Facebook has done is similar to google in that they focused on utility.  I don't spend time on google, I go to google to find things.  Facebook is similar - but different.  I am on Facebook all day (and I'm 33).  The utility is tremendous.  I have 150 friends - real friends) that I can keep up with too some degree.  There is not enough time in the day for me to speak to all my friends so how do I keep up.  Email, RSS?  Some of my friends are not that technical to 'blog' and with junk filters and black lists, email is not even a guarantee.  In comes facebook.

I am going to CTIA in a week and I can post an update on Facebook and my friends know - anyone coming who wants to see me - can.  The concept of a social graph and how to best utilize it is incredibly powerful.  But that is not even the reality of the value. Communities are tough to build and in reality useless.  As niches get sharper and more defined - there is no need for me as a consumer to set-up a new profile, add pictures, add friends, blog, etc.. over and over!!!!  It's crazy.  The switching cost in time and energy is absurd.  So myspace (which is opening up it's platform) thinks we are locked into their world but ultimately the switching cost is not enough to keep me in.. So Facebook says don't try to aggregate an  audience - don't build a platform and most importantly DON'T assume a user wants to populate a profile, preferences etc.  So you, the developer, build on us and try to hook the audience with value.  Are their flaws - of course - but both strategically and practically Facebook is king.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow - I can&#8217;t say I disagree, but I still don&#8217;t think you get it - which is surprising you are freakin smart.  First, Facebook appeals to a group of people that are the hardest of hard core users - college kids who literally use Facebook more then any other application.  What Facebook has done is similar to google in that they focused on utility.  I don&#8217;t spend time on google, I go to google to find things.  Facebook is similar - but different.  I am on Facebook all day (and I&#8217;m 33).  The utility is tremendous.  I have 150 friends - real friends) that I can keep up with too some degree.  There is not enough time in the day for me to speak to all my friends so how do I keep up.  Email, RSS?  Some of my friends are not that technical to &#8216;blog&#8217; and with junk filters and black lists, email is not even a guarantee.  In comes facebook.</p>
<p>I am going to CTIA in a week and I can post an update on Facebook and my friends know - anyone coming who wants to see me - can.  The concept of a social graph and how to best utilize it is incredibly powerful.  But that is not even the reality of the value. Communities are tough to build and in reality useless.  As niches get sharper and more defined - there is no need for me as a consumer to set-up a new profile, add pictures, add friends, blog, etc.. over and over!!!!  It&#8217;s crazy.  The switching cost in time and energy is absurd.  So myspace (which is opening up it&#8217;s platform) thinks we are locked into their world but ultimately the switching cost is not enough to keep me in.. So Facebook says don&#8217;t try to aggregate an  audience - don&#8217;t build a platform and most importantly DON&#8217;T assume a user wants to populate a profile, preferences etc.  So you, the developer, build on us and try to hook the audience with value.  Are their flaws - of course - but both strategically and practically Facebook is king.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fschonholz</title>
		<link>http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>fschonholz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:41:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-67</guid>
		<description>I agree, thus the questions of whom is playing catch up. That part it is still not very clear to me yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree, thus the questions of whom is playing catch up. That part it is still not very clear to me yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Karrer</title>
		<link>http://www.fabianschonholz.net/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-66</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Karrer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:26:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fabianschonholz.com/2007/09/26/i-do-not-get-facebook/#comment-66</guid>
		<description>We should talk.  Apps on top of a social network have a ton of very interesting possibilities.  But it also suggests a direction that "platforms" will take in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We should talk.  Apps on top of a social network have a ton of very interesting possibilities.  But it also suggests a direction that &#8220;platforms&#8221; will take in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
