Hello World,
We've spoken previously about the potential for the web to evolve past it's current format. With the innervation of the Web 2.0, I think that we all believed that this was upon us. Social networking, the power of groups, this was the true, harness-able power of the Internet as it looked three years ago (Someone faints)...
How/Where does that stand today? Is web 2.0 upon us or not, or perhaps, will it ever? I think that these are legitimate questions. Let's discuss and dispense with some of the more trivial architectural components resultantly and then perhaps delve deeper down into backbone-user-end type things.
I suppose the first thing that I should note is my definition of trivial architectural net-stuff. I strongly believe that my definition would differ drastically from most Internet users. While back-end server capacity, data break-up storage and throwaway Gig are all important they are not what truly drives the Internet, the user does and always will. This is, what I believe to be, the crux of the Internet conundrum. A recent Chicago Tribune (notably the RedEye) article mentioned, to understandable dismay, what exactly is the popularity of The Facebook (and the like) derived from? The classic questions, why is what is popular, popular?
From his, again understandable, position, it seems facebook is simply a place to post your weekend party pictures and look at people whom you barely know (Which by the way, rules in and of itself). Furthermore, there is a similar befuddlement among the more stodgy of the tech community. While it is common to understand the depth and "hottness," of social networking on the web currently, there is very little understanding of the why's. The development of the web has followed a tried and regrettable formula articulated by Bruce Campbell about movie/casting executives choosing actors (this also applies to internet executives and the internet). It moves in four phases, and I included the internet parrallel beneath each one.
- "Who the hell is Joe Shmoe?"
(net version)-"What the hell is social networking?"
-"Get me Joe Shmoe!"
(net version)-"Get me some of this social networking!"
-"Get me a Joe Shmoe type!"
(net version)-"Get me the next evolution of social networking!"
-"Who the hell is Joe Shmoe?"
(net version)-"What the hell WAS social networking, anyway?"
Therefore, I will, in the following order, do two things for the very first time. I will explain the popularity of Facebook and then I will talk about why Web Developers are sort of going about things backwards and why we will continue to see "Mark Zuckerberg's" (ie Non-Professionals with either extensive tech savy or ability to partner to extensive web tech) back awkwardly and frusratingly into Internet history, and, consequently, the monetary reward therein.
There is, reader, very classic and simple reasons as to Facebook's popularity and they probably need no explanation to you, but here's how I see it:
1.) Leveraged extremely well-Facebook was, let's face it, a Me2 site insomuch as it was predated not only by friendster and MySpace but also a tumult of other Social Sites. While the popularity of these sites was not at the blazing level it is now it did allow Facebook several advantages.
-It could discern best practices from successful AND failed sites, integrating them into their interface.
-The business concept was legitimized by other, larger firms, backed entry whom had galloped past BEP.
-They could start small and niche (pseudo-beta) with a college market....which had several advantages into itself, by virtue of planning or mistake.
-College, at that time, were the first primary internet usage generation to come though University. They were/are first movers and quickly adaptable
-They were looking, at this time in the net, for something TO DO with this beat called the Internet.
-College students are quite well-connected both laterally and vertically. Laterally, they are a highly social psychograph and vertically they have almost unavoidable connections (quickly) to both High School students (down) and the business world (either with lateral internships or vertical jobs-post graduation)
-Also of note is that I am convinced Facebook accidentily backed into this leveraging, but someone will ALWAYS back into this type og leveraging as the internet is constantly shooting ideas, one of them will always find the right timing, by sheer virture of volume and nature of leveraging, this is why we will continue to see (and hate) Mark Zuckerberg's.
2.)As with almost every other classically successful business concept Facebook took a need, in this case a dark need hardly anyone enumerated, cased it in a legitimate packaging and EXECUTED it extremely well.
-Social connectivity is great, but boiled down, people like to look at other people in contrast with them. This is one of the basic principles of social interaction.
-The execution was fast and deliberate Facebook was and remains an extremely flexible company whom receives, by the nature of its business (and the empowerment of the communication bulk given to the user...i.e.Business' culture) reacts quickly to the massive amount of user feedback they receive daily.
-Also notable here is the loyalty of the user, most users are quite content to stay with Facebook and report problems while waiting on their mending as opposed to seeking out other means to socially connect.
-It is a natural oligopoly.....people (for connectivity reasons) need to be where the most other people are to connect with. Law of permutations.
These reasons stand as a combination of business concept and straight user remarks. The latter is what I feel is discounted/ignored strongly by the majority of web entrepreneurs. They know tech, they solve problems with tech. Problem is, that's their problem.
Simply put, I can't tell you how many meetings I've been in when one person or another remarks "Is there ever a rhyme or a reason to what gets and remains popular,"..(obvious paraphrase), and I will say it is, on the surface, quite like that. My web philoshhpy is quite simple and that is content drives technology. This is something that I think the Web 2.0 allows for, but it hasn't delivered. Use means dollars which pushes R&D (duh). There is a virtually unending list of web start ups that put their eggs in proprietary Web 2.0 technology (www.muckster.com..for starters.) That then missed and are gruesomely under-preforming.
Why is that? Simply put, you can't drive the mass with tech. If it's great you may and if it's in concert with the leverages I mentioned above with Facebook you stand a better chance. However, you stand a much better chance building with existing tech and believing in your concept. Users want functionality and ease of use, which rarely is some new, blinding technology. Too often it is a simple thing (making us all scratch our heads) that utilizes/manipulates existing tech in a new way that allows users greater and more powerful usability.
So please, devo-er's. Solve user problems, not architecture's, unless you want to go broke.* Do not attempt to re-invent the wheel. In fact, there are still several largely profitable tire manufacturers as we speak. Ask them their business concept. The web is business. A classic business, made different by execution and stream-lined cost NOT by being a different thing entirely.
*The author of this article is broke.
