Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases

shadowmage13 writes "Google just announced that starting tonight, developers can start writing applications using the social API for Orkut, MySpace, Engage.com, Friendster, hi5, Hyves, imeem, LinkedIn, Ning, Oracle, Plaxo, Salesforce.com, Six Apart, Tianji, Viadeo, and XING at http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial. Will Facebook give in?" There is quite a bit of analysis of this announcement available in yesterday's discussion.

Now Google???

[rukidding (931503)]

So now even Google is jumping into this whole web 2.0 thing?

Re:

[4D6963 (933028)]

So now even Google is jumping into this whole web 2.0 thing?

Not now at all. Orkut is Google, and it's social networking, and social networking is by definition "Web 2.0". So no, not just now.

Besides, the only thing wrong about Web 2.0 is the term 'Web 2.0'.

Re:

[insertwackynamehere (891357)]

you spelled "smrat" wrong btw

Re:

[Seumas (6865)]

I've already given up. The internet is just turning into one giant party phone. Like the chat lines they used to advertise in the middle of the night in the late 1980s. If you can cash in on that sad state of affairs, I guess you might as well. Can't blame any company that does. Perhaps some day that will fade away and the internet will become something slightly less sophomoric and navel-gazing. Yes, part of the internet still serves a purpose other than trying to score with teenage girls and watching the v

Re:

[4D6963 (933028)]

Yes, part of the internet still serves a purpose other than trying to score with teenage girls and watching the video at 2girls1cup.com, but not much.

Thanks for the link! ;-)

Re:

[Silver Gryphon (928672)]

In the future, you could use this as a painful lesson that sometimes Google is a great source of information on the random link posted by an unknown person. I speak from experience as one who has been burned in a similar manner.

A Google search for the domain name reveals a warning that even I won't ignore.

Digg - Funny reaction to 2Girls1Cup
Warning: DO NOT visit 2girls1cup.com to see what they are watching. Seriously. Don't. Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen. ...

Re:

[kv9 (697238)]

Warning: DO NOT visit 2girls1cup.com to see what they are watching. [2girls1cup.com] Seriously. Don't. Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen. ...

there, fixed that for you.

Re:

[4D6963 (933028)]

Nah, this thing is fake to a certain extent. I've never seen human poop looking like that, they probably stuffed some brown stuff up their bottom and "crapped" it.

Re:

[Pazy (1169639)]

Why be suprised at google, they will be opening there own coffee shop franchise soon. Maybe fund a few space flights. They could do anything and I wouldent even blink anymore lol

Re:

[owlnation (858981)]

Yes, and sadly the one thing they seem not to be doing, is the one thing they should be doing -- developing the next gen of search. We are still a long long way away from adequate search.

Re:

[insertwackynamehere (891357)]

r u kidding? :P (mods check parents username)

Re:Now Google???

[Photar (5491)]

Spoken like someone with a high UID.

How many of those have you heard of?

[m50d (797211)]

Really? I count two, three if you include google. And "different from myspace" has been one of facebook's main attractions. This won't put any pressure on facebook.

Re:How many of those have you heard of?

[Albanach (527650)]

I'm not sure which two you mean? Myspace - 100 million accounts Livejournal - 14 million accounts Orkut - 67 million accounts Firendster - 50 million accounts LinkedIn - 15 million accounts Salesforce.com - 1 million subscribers Tianji - 700,000 members For context, Wikipedia reports that Facebook has 42 million accounts as of October 2007. Now there's certainly some variation, and probably lots of duplication amongst accounts, but seriously, these are big sites, with huge traffic figures. TO dismiss it as one or two and the rest you've never heard seems a tad petulant.

Re:

[iluvcapra (782887)]

I think I have a friendster account, I made it in 2005 when all the pretty young things in Hollywood were using it for their "social" (sing. n.). I haven't used it since the week I made it, I doubt I could even log into it now (everybody went to myspace after about a month, and then to facebook, and nobody ever checks their page anyways). I suspect the number of accounts many social networking sites report come with the same caveat. I think the real question is "How many logins have at least one access per

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286)]

Plus, I would venture to guess the myspace membership is inflated with all of the spam accounts.

Re:

[LoverOfJoy (820058)]

I didn't see LiveJournal in the summary or the article. Did I miss it, somehow? I did a search on the page after reading this post and still couldn't find it.

Re:

[SEE (7681)]

Six Apart is the parent company of LiveJournal, just like Google is the parent company of Orkut and News Corp. is the parent company of MySpace. Now, whether Six Apart's participation means LiveJournal participation . . .

Re:

[Tim C (15259)]

LinkedIn is pretty big in the UK IT business; more or less every single person I know who's in the industry has an account.

I have heard of Salesforce.com but I would be astonished if anyone outside of a major corporation has

I work for a company of a few dozen people, and I've heard of salesforce. Are you normally this easily astonished? ;)

Re:How many of those have you heard of?

[SnowZero (92219)]

Anyone who drives on 101 has seen salesforce.com...

How ridiculous and arrogant. Some of us only have to drive on 85 to get to work. How dare you!

Re:

[trawg (308495)]

How ridiculous and arrogant. How can you accuse the parent of such things when most probably he's not in the target market group for these sites?

There's nothing ridiculous or arrogant about it - it's then even more petulant of him to just dismiss them as the GP did if he's not in the target market, because then it's much more likely that he has absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter that he's opining on.

It'd be like me not knowing anything about web servers and then hearing that Google use Apache as their web server software and SmallCompanyX does too, and then assuming that noone else uses Apache at all.

Re:

[DragonWriter (970822)]

Really? I count two, three if you include google.

So, yeah, there's only a handful already committed to OpenSocial before the SPI docs are released, and most aren't household names. But they've got 200 million user accounts between them, the largest of them alone has around 100 million. Facebook has how many? 40 million or so?

And once the SPI docs are released, since "it is possible to use data from another social network [google.com]", it will be possible for sites with lots of users that aren't primarily social netwo

Facebook vs Google

[mfh (56)]

Google is uniting these other sites because they each have something to gain from that alliance... new segments.

Facebook has nothing to gain because people from each of those segments are already on Facebook.

Facebook only has something to lose by joining that alliance... control over how their medium is dished up and the browser interstitials and advertisement revenue. My dollar is on Facebook for the long haul, unless they are shut down due to code theft (which is actually still in limbo right now, if I un

Re:

[davidsyes (765062)]

*I* have some ideas that might put pressure on Phonebook... Umm, Facebook:

See my:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=345637&cid=21185939 [slashdot.org]

But, the gist is:

"What the thing might have or should have -- and this will hurt feelings -- is a measurement to show relationship (whatever kind it is) based on communication instances, volume, and more. Obviously, this means reading email between senders. I would not say go as far as posting the content.

Some, but not all, communicate regularly. Some fewer communicate

Premier launch applications

[The Clockwork Troll (655321)]

Premier applications launching on the platform include "GlobalPoke", "iReallyReallyReallyLike", and the sure-to-entertain "Biggest Fucking Super Duper Wall Ever"

Again, no!

[DragonWriter (970822)]

What is it with Slashdot headlines and the idea that "release" is an intransitive verb such that "X releases" means approximately the same thing as "X became available"?

"Release" is a transitive verb. The subject is the thing letting something out, the object is the thing let out. "Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases", no, sorry, if you say that, you need to say what it is that Google's OpenSocial platform releases. "Google Releases OpenSocial Platform", yes.

Re:Again, no!

[davidsyes (765062)]

It is NOT unpossible, becuase it is not irreleaseble...

Re:

[ChunderDownunder (709234)]

I agree but it's also a noun, last time I checked.

So maybe the headline refers, skeptically, to multiple releases in the pipeline to tackle the behemoth that is Facebook! :)

Re:

[element-o.p. (939033)]

Yes, but English -- unlike, say Latin -- is a *living* language. It is dynamic and fluid; old words become replaced with new, new words are invented as needed, and even the usage of words changes over time. Ten years ago, "Google" was a proper noun (and a rather obscure one, at that). Now, it is both a proper noun ("Google" the corporation, "google.com" the web page) and a verb (to "google" something or someone; i.e., to search on-line for information, often by usi

No SDK or Docs for Implementation, Though

[duerra (684053)]

Sure, Google released documentation for how to write these kinds of apps, but they have yet to release any documentation for sites looking to implement the APIs. This kinda limits its proliferation. I work for a fairly large social network, and thus far we have not been able to even get started on writing an implementation OpenSocial yet.

Duh

[Mr_Silver (213637)]

Will Facebook give in?

No.

Time and history has shown us that when you're number 1, you don't give in until you absolutely have to - because you don't need to.

That time has not yet come...

Re:Duh

[owlnation (858981)]

Yes. But they aren't currently number one. And they most certainly won't be after the others network together. But thanks for playing anyway...

Re:

[yashinka (891973)]

Perhaps they don't have the most accounts, but with the huge amount of fake accounts on MySpace, that figure is meaningless. I, like many people I know, have accounts on MySpace, Friendster and maybe a few others, but I only log in when I have friend requests.

Facebook has the best UI and it already has tons of great apps. Until those apps move and all my friends move and users start changing back, I don't think Facebook has anything to worry about. Facebook has the most used photo app and events app o

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

If you add "in the US" to every sentence you wrote, then, you'd be accurate.

Except their not #1

[cpu_fusion (705735)]

Myspace has twice as many accounts. Or did you mean first to have an API? Well, that's true, but they don't have years of being ahead of the game there, and on top of that, we're talking about an open API from Google. ... !

Re:

[Enderandrew (866215)]

Myspace is the #1 website on the planet, and has more hits than either Yahoo or Google.

So I don't see how Facebook is supposedly the #1 social networking site in your book.

Either way, I don't really care for any of them.

Re:

[c_forq (924234)]

Just because Ford may sell more cars than any other auto maker in the world does not make them the best, and it most certainly doesn't mean Ferrari should submit to standards that may hurt their performance edge.

Re:

[Enderandrew (866215)]

We aren't talking about the "best". We're talking about a market leader not having to pander to those trying to catch up to it.

Re:

[c_forq (924234)]

The GGP simply stated Facebook was number one. He didn't specify in what regard. Saying something is number one is often used to describe quality in America.

Re:

[Enderandrew (866215)]

#1 in quality doesn't equate directly to success. His point was that someone who is #1 doesn't have to change to match other people. Market share is more important than quality in terms of flexibility to do your own thing. Using his car analogy, the Toyota Supra was hailed as perhaps the best sports car of its time, but it wasn't as popular, or cheap, or successful as the competition, so it died out. It no longer exists, where as the Camaro, Corvette, Mustang, etc. still exist today. Again, if his poin

Demographics

[brunes69 (86786)]

MySpace may be the #1 website by traffic, but not by money-making eyeballs. MySpace's largest demographic is tweens and younger. Facebook's is High School to College and older. Guess which demographic spends more money?

Re:

[tgd (2822)]

And yet #1 did give in.

So much for that theory.

Re:

[insertwackynamehere (891357)]

I'm pretty sure Stevie B doesn't want Facebook integrating with Google

Re:

[drix (4602)]

1.6% of Facebook is a close MS partner. Not exactly hostile takeover territory there.

Consolidation Phase

[broward (416376)]

Social networking is peaking in growth, ergo it's entering a consolidation phase. Google's OpenSocial APi release is a brilliant counter-strategy (for once). FaceBook's API was a good gamble into a peaking market but I think Google has outdone them.

My prediction on FaceBook's growth rate BEFORE the Google OpenSocial API release.

http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=social_networking_meme [realmeme.com]

Re:

[burris (122191)]

You're nuts if you think social networking on the 'net is peaking. It has barely gotten started. Eventually, it will be as ubiquitous as personal phone numbers.

"Will Facebook give in?"

[Thwomp (773873)]

Would Microsoft be happy with this? After all they're sworn enemies of Google. Remember Microsoft has invested in Facebook, how much control/influence does it have on the company?

Re:

[DrEldarion (114072)]

I think it's something like one and a half percent. Hardly enough to make any sort of difference.

Load of Crap

[z-j-y (1056250)]

It's Friday evening, and I don't have any friend, real or virtual. So I actually watched that retarded video. (highly recommended for a good laugh)

All it is supposed to be, is so that you can write some stupid client side gadget, and you gadget can be run on every participating websites. BFD.

Each site is still an isolated island. You gadget doesn't run across sites, it only runs on every sites. It is not for sharing anything or interacting with anybody among different sites.

I've assumed that OpenSocial is a

Total non-feature

[tjstork (137384)]

While I'm sure that there are some people that like to have their networking links travel from place to place, I think this is a feature that is really designed to benefit on-line marketers more than end users. Developers that write for these APIs, are really sort of fools, because ultimately, they are giving away to Google and others information that they should really actually -pay for-. If I were lucky enough to put some social site together with millions of hits, the last thing I'd want to would be to give away all of my behavior information to Google. If they want it, then they can write me a fricking check.

MY CUSTOMERS! MINE, MINE, MINE!