Reading an article about why Google didn't win the minor hand in Facebook sparked a thought. The columnist Evelyn states that Google has an interest in making iGoogle a similar platform to Facebook. That's a great idea, and I would love to know the user count for iGoogle and Gmail (haha, wouldn't we all) because I use Gmail to iGoogle on a 365:2 ratio. I use Gmail and Facebook synchronously albeit separately.. so why not make e-mail social networking? They are the same thing, communication. So annoying that I have to click onto "X sent you a message on Facebook" and follow links (that's kinda evil..). Cumulatively, do you know how many hours have collected which I could have been doing something more productive via click reduction? Forced stickiness induces inefficiency, but obviously efficiency isn't Facebook's goal.
I think I've discovered Facebook's new secret: better e-mail.
And btw, what's getting old? Social networks not hinged on behavior-changing technology. icandy is not going to do it, no duh.
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facebook. Show all posts
Friday, October 26, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
the distributor model works
a few months back, i was griping to a friend how the entities that make the most money are usually transactional based, the middlemen.
this morning (screwing the gym at 7...), a few things came together:
- google makes money on transactions. Adwords <> Adsense. When interviewers ask Eric S. whether Google is 1. a content company, or 2. a media company, he always has the same answer: "we are a distribution company." Google, at the core, is about transactions, and they are the purveyors of fine goods and ads transactions. But based on my observations of companies that make $, few of them start off as distributors. They start as content companies.
- facebook was and still is a content company. as it matures, it will make $ by being a distributor, and they will do it by having others do the work for them. this is a brilliant and "lazy" idea, so typically brilliant. they will take a share in revenue of third party apps (just signed a deal with videoegg to make 3rd party monetization easier).
so why does 1) Zuck explain that FB is not just a social-networking site but a "utility"*, and 2) emphasize the "social graph"** so much, and correct columnists when they claim something else?
Because 1) utility is a distributor is a transactional model, and 2) "social graph" is the secret sauce. it is the equivalent of Google's eigenvector.
*Quoted from this newsweek article: Speaking with NEWSWEEK between bites of a tofu snack, he is much more interested in explaining why Facebook is (1) not a social-networking site but a "utility," a tool to facilitate the information flow between users and their compatriots, family members and professional connections; (2) not just for college students, and (3) a world-changing idea of unlimited potential. Every so often he drifts back to No. 2 again, just for good measure. But the nub of his vision revolves around a concept he calls the "social graph.
**From the Economist: The fancy mathematical name he has for this map is a “social graph”, a model of nodes and links in which nodes are people and connections are friendships. Once this social graph, or map, is in place, it becomes a potent mechanism for spreading information. For instance, he says, “we automatically know who should have a new photo album,” because as soon as one person uploads it to the site, all her friends see it, and the friends of friends might notice too.
this morning (screwing the gym at 7...), a few things came together:
- google makes money on transactions. Adwords <> Adsense. When interviewers ask Eric S. whether Google is 1. a content company, or 2. a media company, he always has the same answer: "we are a distribution company." Google, at the core, is about transactions, and they are the purveyors of fine goods and ads transactions. But based on my observations of companies that make $, few of them start off as distributors. They start as content companies.
- facebook was and still is a content company. as it matures, it will make $ by being a distributor, and they will do it by having others do the work for them. this is a brilliant and "lazy" idea, so typically brilliant. they will take a share in revenue of third party apps (just signed a deal with videoegg to make 3rd party monetization easier).
so why does 1) Zuck explain that FB is not just a social-networking site but a "utility"*, and 2) emphasize the "social graph"** so much, and correct columnists when they claim something else?
Because 1) utility is a distributor is a transactional model, and 2) "social graph" is the secret sauce. it is the equivalent of Google's eigenvector.
*Quoted from this newsweek article: Speaking with NEWSWEEK between bites of a tofu snack, he is much more interested in explaining why Facebook is (1) not a social-networking site but a "utility," a tool to facilitate the information flow between users and their compatriots, family members and professional connections; (2) not just for college students, and (3) a world-changing idea of unlimited potential. Every so often he drifts back to No. 2 again, just for good measure. But the nub of his vision revolves around a concept he calls the "social graph.
**From the Economist: The fancy mathematical name he has for this map is a “social graph”, a model of nodes and links in which nodes are people and connections are friendships. Once this social graph, or map, is in place, it becomes a potent mechanism for spreading information. For instance, he says, “we automatically know who should have a new photo album,” because as soon as one person uploads it to the site, all her friends see it, and the friends of friends might notice too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
