Is OpenSocial the Microsoft Anti-social?

Today, Google announced OpenSocial, a set of APIs for creating content across disparate social networks. In theory, OpenSocial would offer some of the same development and content benefits as the Facebook or MySpace platforms. But rather than write many times everywhere, developers could write once everywhere. Social networkers and networks would benefit from greater connections and traffic across Web sites or to disparate content sources. The approach is very Web 2.0.

Facebook, which Microsoft invested in last week, is very anti-Web 2.0, because the social network is more like an operating system in the sky. Developers create applications for the service, much as they might for Windows. End users install applications, create content and socialize within that platform, rather than across the Web. Like Windows, created content and applications are fairly tied to the platform.

OpenSocial supporters include Flixster, Friendster, Hi5, iLike, LinkedIn, Ning, Oracle, RockYou, Salesforce.com and Slide. Some of these companies are Microsoft partners, but the majority compete with the software giant somewhere or another. As Facebook investor and supporter—and developer of loosely open Windows Live—Microsoft stands opposite Google and its OpenSocial supporters.

Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen aptly described OpenSocial in a blog post: "This is the exact same concept as the Facebook platform, with two huge differences:

"With the Facebook platform, only Facebook itself can be a 'container'—'apps' can only run within Facebook itself. In contrast, with OpenSocial, any social network can be an OpenSocial container and allow OpenSocial apps to run within it.

"With the Facebook platform, app developers build to Facebook-proprietary languages and APIs such as FBML (Facebook Markup Language) and FQL (Facebook Query Language)—those languages and APIs don't work anywhere other than Facebook—and then the apps can only run within Facebook. In contrast, with OpenSocial, app developers can build to standard HTML and Javascript, and their apps can then run in any OpenSocial container."

Andreessen makes a good case for OpenSocial, but fails to address the significance of the technology's Google platform ties. Applications have to run in something, and that's Google's OpenSocial container. They're not floating free in outer space, so to speak. Something else: Write once everywhere is a message heard before—too many times—with Sun's Java. How successful was it, really?

Also, Google isn't approaching a new problem, nor is it doing so with a clever new solution. OpenSocial is very Web 2.0 but with its own proprietary ties to Google. The APIs are a competitive platform move against Microsoft as much as a solution to a real problem. Facebook could be the new Windows, but on the Web, if the service really succeeds. Microsoft's support today could be much bigger in the future. Surely that concerns somebody at Google.

Still, the informational and development silos are real, and they demonstrate some of the Web platform's shortcomings. Personal example: I get new invites for Facebook and LinkedIn every week. Most contacts are on one service or the other, and a few on both. But there is no real facility for bringing the two services together, for maximizing the social and informational benefits. OpenSocial could break down the barriers between the services.

Dare Obasanjo, a Microsoft Web services program manager, described OpenSocial as "a brilliant move," in a blog post today. He rightly recognized the competitive play against Facebook—and Microsoft.

"This is the only thing Google could have done that makes any sense," he explained. "Building a clone of the Facebook platform like some social networking sites planned would have been dumb because that would be the tail the wagging the dog. This is the only move that has a chance of actually giving their anti-Facebook platform a chance of being successful."

He's not convinced OpenSocial can succeed without a bigger supporter. "This requires a popular social networking site with a wide audience (e.g. MySpace) to adopt the platform before we see this kind of traction."

I agree. New platforms all go through the same chicken-and-egg process. Which comes first, the users or the applications? Application development requires resources investment that only makes sense if there are the users. But the users come from there being applications. Facebook already had the users—and in a fairly contained space. If Facebook is the big city, these other services are smaller towns spread across a wide Web 2.0 landscape.

Obasanjo also identified what is perhaps the biggest developmental benefit: Widgets. "Disparate widget platforms in social networking sites is a burden for widget developers and will lead to a 'winner takes all' situation because no one wants to support umpteen different platforms," he explained.

Widgets aren't yet a truly tapped informational and economic resource. Their potential is evident, because of their small application footprint and huge informational benefit. What's missing: Revenue generation.

Obasanjo didn't discuss this, but I will. What happens when Google taps widgets running in OpenSocial containers for advertising and contextual search? The crack in the chicken-and-egg scenario is money—and the opportunity to make it. I predict that OpenSocial will succeed or fail more because of Google's advertising/search platform than any so-called openness across social networking services.

"I wonder how my co-workers in Windows Live are going to take this news?" Obasanjo mused. He asked the right question.

I have seen little traction for Live or Windows Vista gadgets, which is surprising considering the developer and ender-user interest in Mac OS X or Yahoo widgets. There is also a lively community of widgets for Movable Type and WordPress blogging platforms.

The question Obsanjo should have asked: Why didn't Windows Live offer its own, broader Widget platform first?

Related Posts:

• What Microsoft Gets From Facebook, Microsoft Watch, Oct. 24, 2007
• Microsoft Punches Out Google at the Facebook Altar, Google Watch, Oct. 24, 2007
• Microsoft's Facebook in the Mirror, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 25, 2007
• Live Hotmail: Teen Sensation, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 20, 2007
• Microsoft's Face in the Book, Microsoft Watch, July 16, 2007
• Why Google Succeeds, Part 2, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
• Why Google Succeeds, Part 1, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
• One Redmond Way | Razorfish, Microsoft Watch, May 21, 2007
• Why Microsoft Wrote aQuantive a Big Check, Microsoft Watch, May 18, 2007
• Top 10 List: Why Microsoft and Yahoo Couldn't Marry, Microsoft Watch, May 5, 2007
• Will Microsoft Yell Yahoo?, Microsoft Watch, May 4, 2007
• DoubleClick and Microsoft's Thrift Culture, Microsoft Watch, April 16, 2007
• Will Microsoft See Double(Click)?, Microsoft Watch, March 28, 2007