VERY BAD FORM

To say I was surprised when I received an email yesterday from a close friend, about why he was receiving an email solicitation from Vonage on my recommendation, is an understatement (no link love to Vonage or its programs). 

He had attached an email from Vonage that was soliciting him to subscribe to their service as part of their "Refer-a-friend" program.  It mentioned my given name "Mukesh Parekh", no less than three times in the email.

Although Ive been a long-time subscriber to Vonage, I have NEVER, EVER consciously given them email addresses of my friends, or my permission to solicit them in my name.

Just to be sure, I spent an hour searching through all my electronic correspondence across all my email services on all my computers.  Ive had almost no snail-mail contact with the company.

I found no record of my ever having signed up for Vonages referral program, or given them permission to solicit my friends.

And yet there it was, a solicitation in my name, to a friend who is PARTICULARLY sensitive about spam and privacy issues, and very careful as to who he gives out his email address.

I obviously apologized profusely.

I then searched Google for the terms "Vonage, refer, friend", and found that I wasnt alone.

Vonage apparently is in litigation in some states for their aggressive harvesting of customer data for their spammy marketing campaigns.  And other folks found themselves in a similar boat.

Im ticked off about this enough to spend however long it takes today, to cancel my Vonage service. 

Ill have to go through banks of "customer save" reps to do it.  But its the one small thing I can do to show how much of a non-starter this is for an internet company with all the promise that Vonage once had.

Curious if anyone else out there have had this personalized spam experience.

OY VAY

(Update:  Brad Feld has a good post articulating the "Facebook problem" in another way, and theres a good Techmeme discussion on the subject).

Its barely a month since Facebooks launch of its F8 platform strategy, and Im really starting to suffer from "Social Network platform Fatigue", or SNitis for short.

Its not Facebooks fault.  Theyre at the early stages of an exciting and potentially game-changing strategy execution, as Ive articulated before.  Marc Andreessen has a comprehensive take on this here.

But given the attention the strategy change has gotten in the geek and mainstream media, every incumbent social network, portal, media company, and web company thats had any aspect of social networking in its model, is re-vamping its strategy to both emulate and counter Facebooks strategy. 

All the while theyre busy "partnering" with Facebook with their own applications and widgets that work within the emerging Facebook platform.

No one wants to miss on the next big internet opportunity and/or make the mistake that IBM did with Microsoft, and Yahoo!/Microsoft/AOL did with Google (gave the upstart company a game-changing, long-term advantage for short-term expediency).  As an aside, its interesting to note that given the web 2.0 fishbowl today, Facebook has far less of a head-start on its game-changing strategy than either Google or Microsoft did in their day.

Which means that we poor users should brace ourselves for a flood of revamped social networking platform strategies, in the coming weeks and months.

Robert Scoble has a couple of posts up yesterday that hints at some of this. 

First he talks about getting an early look at Plaxos new strategy, to be officially announced next week.  You remember Plaxo...this was one of the original social networking companies focused on keeping your address book up-to-date into eternity.  As Robert highlights:

"I’ll be honest, I last tried Plaxo a couple of years ago. I hated the service. Yet another way to be bugged by people into joining yet another social service.

And worse everytime I added someone to my Outlook contact Plaxo bugged them with an email to join up and keep their contact info up to date. I quickly uninstalled and didn’t try the service again.

But I met someone who works at Plaxo at a recent Silicon Valley party and he said “everything has changed you should come back out and see what we’re up to.”

So, today, I did.

They are coming out with a new set of services on Monday. All I can say is “wow.”

I quickly signed on. I can’t say more until Monday, but Plaxo is definitely added back onto my set of services that I’m going to regularly use."

How much do you want to bet therell be aspects of Facebooks social network platform model in the new Plaxo model?

Second, Robert talks about the compulsion he feels to try a spate of new social networking platform companies as they crop up.  Hes not even sure of what to do call them.  In a post titled, Jaiku/Twitter/Facebook/Kyte/Plaxo = something happening you should pay attention to, he says:

"I’ve really been bitten by the Facebook/Twitter/Kyte/Jaiku bug...

I had to add Dopplr to my bag of tricks (it keeps track of where you, and your friends, are). Forget Dopplr right now, because most of you haven’t yet experienced many of these five services that help you share your presence and other things about what you’re doing, or what you’re thinking about with other people.

Why am I using these services nearly every hour of my waking life? Because they are being talked about and I want to learn what is making people so passionate...

I’m not sure what we should call this group of apps. Presence updaters? Microbloggers? Social networkers?"

Read the full post for a lot more than you probably want to know about these five "must have" social networking/micro-blogging/presence updater thingies.

And its not just about getting overwhelmed with all these social networking thingies.

Each one of them will have some type of a platform/widget strategy, thatll be spamming you with dozens if not hundreds of "applications" that youll initially feel compelled to install and try out if youre a geek. 

The alternative is missing something cool, and not keeping up with the geek Joneses.

Paul Kedrosky highlights this in a timely post titled "Option F and the Facebook 500,000,a few days ago:

"Around this time last year Josh Kopelman came up with the idea of the Techcrunch chasm. The root idea is/was that too many companies were targeting the then-53,651 readers of Mike As popular Techcrunch blog. A good review in Techcrunch, as Josh pointed out, gets you 5-25k beta users, and then youre stuck.

Im wondering if something similar isnt happening in Facebook. I keep hearing about companies that are exercising "Option F" and launching a Facebook version of their app, only to suddenly have 500,000 users.

But for how long? Im betting, pace the Techcrunch chasm, that those people are an ephemeral crew, and that they try pretty much anything, and then drop it again."

Its true.  Ive installed dozens of applications in Facebook, and barely gone back to actually using a couple.  Ive joined almost a hundred groups, but barely visited the discussion forums of a couple.

As an aside again, is doesnt help, as Howard Rheingold rightly points out, that Facebook lacks a simple way to all the updates in all your subscribed groups at one go.  This is a capability available in the most basic of message boards, employing technology thats almost pre-historic by Web 2.0 standards.
 

Do the numbers.  Add up the potential applications per social network, add up the social networks.  Multiply those two numbers. 

Multiply that number with the average time per application/widget, and that result with a certain frequency per week of using the lot of them, and pretty much you barely have enough time to do anything interesting in your life, that you can then share in all your social networks.

And we havent even added in all the discussion groups youll subscribe to within all these social networks.

So if you thought "portal fatigue" and "ipod fatigue" was bad, you aint seen anything yet.  Get ready for some serious "social networking fatigue/SNitis".

Itll get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.

OY VAY

(Update:  Brad Feld has a good post articulating the "Facebook problem" in another way, and theres a good Techmeme discussion on the subject).

Its barely a month since Facebooks launch of its F8 platform strategy, and Im really starting to suffer from "Social Network platform Fatigue", or SNitis for short.

Its not Facebooks fault.  Theyre at the early stages of an exciting and potentially game-changing strategy execution, as Ive articulated before.  Marc Andreessen has a comprehensive take on this here.

But given the attention the strategy change has gotten in the geek and mainstream media, every incumbent social network, portal, media company, and web company thats had any aspect of social networking in its model, is re-vamping its strategy to both emulate and counter Facebooks strategy. 

All the while theyre busy "partnering" with Facebook with their own applications and widgets that work within the emerging Facebook platform.

No one wants to miss on the next big internet opportunity and/or make the mistake that IBM did with Microsoft, and Yahoo!/Microsoft/AOL did with Google (gave the upstart company a game-changing, long-term advantage for short-term expediency).  As an aside, its interesting to note that given the web 2.0 fishbowl today, Facebook has far less of a head-start on its game-changing strategy than either Google or Microsoft did in their day.

Which means that we poor users should brace ourselves for a flood of revamped social networking platform strategies, in the coming weeks and months.

Robert Scoble has a couple of posts up yesterday that hints at some of this. 

First he talks about getting an early look at Plaxos new strategy, to be officially announced next week.  You remember Plaxo...this was one of the original social networking companies focused on keeping your address book up-to-date into eternity.  As Robert highlights:

"I’ll be honest, I last tried Plaxo a couple of years ago. I hated the service. Yet another way to be bugged by people into joining yet another social service.

And worse everytime I added someone to my Outlook contact Plaxo bugged them with an email to join up and keep their contact info up to date. I quickly uninstalled and didn’t try the service again.

But I met someone who works at Plaxo at a recent Silicon Valley party and he said “everything has changed you should come back out and see what we’re up to.”

So, today, I did.

They are coming out with a new set of services on Monday. All I can say is “wow.”

I quickly signed on. I can’t say more until Monday, but Plaxo is definitely added back onto my set of services that I’m going to regularly use."

How much do you want to bet therell be aspects of Facebooks social network platform model in the new Plaxo model?

Second, Robert talks about the compulsion he feels to try a spate of new social networking platform companies as they crop up.  Hes not even sure of what to do call them.  In a post titled, Jaiku/Twitter/Facebook/Kyte/Plaxo = something happening you should pay attention to, he says:

"I’ve really been bitten by the Facebook/Twitter/Kyte/Jaiku bug...

I had to add Dopplr to my bag of tricks (it keeps track of where you, and your friends, are). Forget Dopplr right now, because most of you haven’t yet experienced many of these five services that help you share your presence and other things about what you’re doing, or what you’re thinking about with other people.

Why am I using these services nearly every hour of my waking life? Because they are being talked about and I want to learn what is making people so passionate...

I’m not sure what we should call this group of apps. Presence updaters? Microbloggers? Social networkers?"

Read the full post for a lot more than you probably want to know about these five "must have" social networking/micro-blogging/presence updater thingies.

And its not just about getting overwhelmed with all these social networking thingies.

Each one of them will have some type of a platform/widget strategy, thatll be spamming you with dozens if not hundreds of "applications" that youll initially feel compelled to install and try out if youre a geek. 

The alternative is missing something cool, and not keeping up with the geek Joneses.

Paul Kedrosky highlights this in a timely post titled "Option F and the Facebook 500,000,a few days ago:

"Around this time last year Josh Kopelman came up with the idea of the Techcrunch chasm. The root idea is/was that too many companies were targeting the then-53,651 readers of Mike As popular Techcrunch blog. A good review in Techcrunch, as Josh pointed out, gets you 5-25k beta users, and then youre stuck.

Im wondering if something similar isnt happening in Facebook. I keep hearing about companies that are exercising "Option F" and launching a Facebook version of their app, only to suddenly have 500,000 users.

But for how long? Im betting, pace the Techcrunch chasm, that those people are an ephemeral crew, and that they try pretty much anything, and then drop it again."

Its true.  Ive installed dozens of applications in Facebook, and barely gone back to actually using a couple.  Ive joined almost a hundred groups, but barely visited the discussion forums of a couple.

As an aside again, is doesnt help, as Howard Rheingold rightly points out, that Facebook lacks a simple way to all the updates in all your subscribed groups at one go.  This is a capability available in the most basic of message boards, employing technology thats almost pre-historic by Web 2.0 standards.
 

Do the numbers.  Add up the potential applications per social network, add up the social networks.  Multiply those two numbers. 

Multiply that number with the average time per application/widget, and that result with a certain frequency per week of using the lot of them, and pretty much you barely have enough time to do anything interesting in your life, that you can then share in all your social networks.

And we havent even added in all the discussion groups youll subscribe to within all these social networks.

So if you thought "portal fatigue" and "ipod fatigue" was bad, you aint seen anything yet.  Get ready for some serious "social networking fatigue/SNitis".

Itll get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.

HELPLESS AND HAPLESS

Well, it happened almost on the first anniversary of the day I declared Google Browser Sync (aka GBS) to be a "Thriller" product.

Last year, I had the following great words about GBS:

"With this post, Im officially classifying Googles recently introduced "Browser Sync" extensionaggressive marketing by the company. as a "Thriller" product, worthy of more

I was pretty enthused about Browser Sync already when Google introduced it earlier this month.  As a refresher, heres how Google describes this cool piece of software:

"Google Browser Sync for Firefox is an extension that continuously synchronizes your browser settings – including bookmarks, history, persistent cookies, and saved passwords – across your computers.

It also allows you to restore open tabs and windows across different machines and browser sessions. For more info, please visit our FAQ."

Well, I may have spoken a year too soon.  GBS did work relatively flawlessly syncing all my bookmarks, passwords, cookies, etc. across a handful of Windows and Macs, for all these months.

But yesterday, I noticed that my primary Windows laptop had a blank bookmark bar in my Firefox browser, where the day before, thered been dozens of folders meticulously organized with all my important bookmarks.

I quickly went to my primary Mac laptop and fired up Firefox.  Sure enough, no bookmarks.

Then went quickly to my primary Windows and Mac desktops, and also, no bookmarks.

Its as if each machine had been lobotomized overnight.

I didnt panic.  I figured it was just some sort of a server synchronization error on Googles side.  I mean, as reliable as Google services like Gmail, Google Calendar, etc. have been, there HAVE been occasional hiccups.

So I went to the GBS FAQ and went through the meager suggestions offered for refreshing and reconnecting GBS.

Did them all.

No dice, no bookmarks, no joy.

Then the normal demands of the day intruded, and I had to put aside the whole GBS thing yesterday. 

I hoped in the back of my mind that things would be back to normal today.

Again, no such luck.

This morning, Ive spent a good amount of time on the web researching this issue, and it seems Im not alone.

Google doesnt seem to have proper support for GBS.  There is a discussion group though, rife with reports of similar problems over the last couple of months.

But I cant seem to find any official response from Google on the problem, or on how to fix it.

At this point Id even settle for some way to get an older copy of my bookmarks, so I can restore them directly to a browser again.

The various kind folks in the Google discussion groups all seem to refer to the "Wrath of GBS" discussion thread, where after one reads through countless posts, several work arounds have solved the problem for some.

I read through most of them, and tried the various things suggested.  No luck my end.

To my amazement, there seems to be no setting within GBS that allows one to access previous states of ones browser configuration.

Im not even sure of how one might make a backup of ones bookmarks with GBS.

The discussion groups all suggest that Google has all but orphaned the GBS project, with one or two Google engineers working on the product in their "20% pet project" time.

If thats the case, its a pretty abominable state of affairs.

Theres no warning label on the GBS site that this is a beta product.

Now I know its still a Google Labs project, so that implicitly means that its a beta product.

But Im mad at myself for having let it become to mission critical to my online work, and being oblivious to the beta nature of the product. 

And of course for not worrying enough to have figured out how to make a backup of all my bookmarks.

So Im up the proverbial creek for now.

So much for living ones life "in the cloud".

Makes one yearn for good, old-fashioned desktop applications again.

Any thoughts and/or suggestions out there, are most welcome.

Oh, and Im suspending the "Thriller" rating on Google Browser Sync, for now.

Now, Im going to try and figure out how to back up all my documents and spreadsheets on Google Docs.  Just in case.

ONE MORE THING...

The 2008 Presidential elections just got more interesting.  The New York Times reports that:

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation, a step that could clear the way for him to make an independent bid for the presidency."

Heres a guy I respect a lot not only for what hes accomplished in business, but also in politics. 

And because of his independent wealth, hes not forced to waffle on the major issues to fit the extreme demands of either party.

In particular, hes the one possible candidate who talks about immigration in terms of the economic well-being of America, not just in the context of physical security. 

This New York Sun piece covers his recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, focusing on this issue.  Its a position Im in agreement with, having talked about a fair bit on this blog.

One has to be realistic though about the prospects of an "Independent" candidate historically in U.S. Presidential elections.  As the NY Times piece makes clear:

"Still, American voters have been reluctant to embrace independent candidacies. After spending $65 million in 1992, Ross Perot failed to get a single electoral vote.

And third-party candidates often struggle to get on the ballot, as they confront often byzantine election laws and frequent court challenges."

Nevertheless, the prospects of a Bloomberg candidacy is a breath of fresh air in this otherwise stale Presidential race so far.  More homework to do for all of us.

HELPLESS AND HAPLESS

Well, it happened almost on the first anniversary of the day I declared Google Browser Sync (aka GBS) to be a "Thriller" product.

Last year, I had the following great words about GBS:

"With this post, Im officially classifying Googles recently introduced "Browser Sync" extensionaggressive marketing by the company. as a "Thriller" product, worthy of more

I was pretty enthused about Browser Sync already when Google introduced it earlier this month.  As a refresher, heres how Google describes this cool piece of software:

"Google Browser Sync for Firefox is an extension that continuously synchronizes your browser settings – including bookmarks, history, persistent cookies, and saved passwords – across your computers.

It also allows you to restore open tabs and windows across different machines and browser sessions. For more info, please visit our FAQ."

Well, I may have spoken a year too soon.  GBS did work relatively flawlessly syncing all my bookmarks, passwords, cookies, etc. across a handful of Windows and Macs, for all these months.

But yesterday, I noticed that my primary Windows laptop had a blank bookmark bar in my Firefox browser, where the day before, thered been dozens of folders meticulously organized with all my important bookmarks.

I quickly went to my primary Mac laptop and fired up Firefox.  Sure enough, no bookmarks.

Then went quickly to my primary Windows and Mac desktops, and also, no bookmarks.

Its as if each machine had been lobotomized overnight.

I didnt panic.  I figured it was just some sort of a server synchronization error on Googles side.  I mean, as reliable as Google services like Gmail, Google Calendar, etc. have been, there HAVE been occasional hiccups.

So I went to the GBS FAQ and went through the meager suggestions offered for refreshing and reconnecting GBS.

Did them all.

No dice, no bookmarks, no joy.

Then the normal demands of the day intruded, and I had to put aside the whole GBS thing yesterday. 

I hoped in the back of my mind that things would be back to normal today.

Again, no such luck.

This morning, Ive spent a good amount of time on the web researching this issue, and it seems Im not alone.

Google doesnt seem to have proper support for GBS.  There is a discussion group though, rife with reports of similar problems over the last couple of months.

But I cant seem to find any official response from Google on the problem, or on how to fix it.

At this point Id even settle for some way to get an older copy of my bookmarks, so I can restore them directly to a browser again.

The various kind folks in the Google discussion groups all seem to refer to the "Wrath of GBS" discussion thread, where after one reads through countless posts, several work arounds have solved the problem for some.

I read through most of them, and tried the various things suggested.  No luck my end.

To my amazement, there seems to be no setting within GBS that allows one to access previous states of ones browser configuration.

Im not even sure of how one might make a backup of ones bookmarks with GBS.

The discussion groups all suggest that Google has all but orphaned the GBS project, with one or two Google engineers working on the product in their "20% pet project" time.

If thats the case, its a pretty abominable state of affairs.

Theres no warning label on the GBS site that this is a beta product.

Now I know its still a Google Labs project, so that implicitly means that its a beta product.

But Im mad at myself for having let it become to mission critical to my online work, and being oblivious to the beta nature of the product. 

And of course for not worrying enough to have figured out how to make a backup of all my bookmarks.

So Im up the proverbial creek for now.

So much for living ones life "in the cloud".

Makes one yearn for good, old-fashioned desktop applications again.

Any thoughts and/or suggestions out there, are most welcome.

Oh, and Im suspending the "Thriller" rating on Google Browser Sync, for now.

Now, Im going to try and figure out how to back up all my documents and spreadsheets on Google Docs.  Just in case.

BUMPY RIDE

Marc Andreessen has another great post up, on a particularly timely subject.  Titled "Why NOT to do a Startup", the post gives a detailed outline of a lot of the cons of doing a startup.  Its Part I on a series on the subject.  Marc obviously has some very relevant perspectives on the subject, with three startups under his belt, and as an investor and adviser to dozens of others.

The post particularly hit home for me, since Ive had the opportunity to work with dozens of internet and technology startups as an internet research analyst since 1994, and as an investor in startups today.

Marc goes through eight items to watch out before jumping in with both feet.  Number two in particular, was expressed  very well:

"..in a startup, absolutely nothing happens unless you make it happen.

This one throws both founders and employees new to startups.

In an established company -- no matter how poorly run or demoralized -- things happen. They just happen. People come in to work. Code gets written. User interfaces get designed. Servers get provisioned. Markets get analyzed. Pricing gets studied and determined. Sales calls get made. The wastebaskets get emptied. And so on.

A startup has none of the established systems, rhythms, infrastructure that any established company has.

You as the founder have to put all of these systems and routines and habits in place and get everyone actually rowing -- forget even about rowing in the right direction: just rowing at all is hard enough at the start.

And until you do, absolutely nothing happens.

Unless, of course, you do it yourself.

Have fun emptying those wastebaskets."

As wonderful a startup may seem from a hundred thousand feet from the outside, it can really be NO FUN dealing with the most basic issues, way deep in the weeds.

Marc goes through a pretty comprehensive list of things to watch out for before getting excited about doing a startup.

One thing Id add would be that more likely than not, the startup will need to meaningfully change its product and/or service direction at least once or more in the first three years.

Almost every startup you can think of started off as one thing and eventually became something very different way before making the transition from private to a public company.

Microsoft in its earliest days was a programming tools company, not an operating system and application company.

Yahoo! started out as a directory of websites, not a media portal/web-based online service.

Google, of course started out as a search company, but didnt become the Google money machine we know, until it built its keyword advertising system.

These are only the most well-known examples.

Whats not often understood by outsiders, is how wrenching the product/service evolution process is  for all involved in a startup.  This of course includes the  founders, management, employees, customers, and investors.

Unfortunately, this is more the norm than the exception for most startups.

And most of the time, its not anticipated in the founders plans before they buy the first waste basket.

BUMPY RIDE

Marc Andreessen has another great post up, on a particularly timely subject.  Titled "Why NOT to do a Startup", the post gives a detailed outline of a lot of the cons of doing a startup.  Its Part I on a series on the subject.  Marc obviously has some very relevant perspectives on the subject, with three startups under his belt, and as an investor and adviser to dozens of others.

The post particularly hit home for me, since Ive had the opportunity to work with dozens of internet and technology startups as an internet research analyst since 1994, and as an investor in startups today.

Marc goes through eight items to watch out before jumping in with both feet.  Number two in particular, was expressed  very well:

"..in a startup, absolutely nothing happens unless you make it happen.

This one throws both founders and employees new to startups.

In an established company -- no matter how poorly run or demoralized -- things happen. They just happen. People come in to work. Code gets written. User interfaces get designed. Servers get provisioned. Markets get analyzed. Pricing gets studied and determined. Sales calls get made. The wastebaskets get emptied. And so on.

A startup has none of the established systems, rhythms, infrastructure that any established company has.

You as the founder have to put all of these systems and routines and habits in place and get everyone actually rowing -- forget even about rowing in the right direction: just rowing at all is hard enough at the start.

And until you do, absolutely nothing happens.

Unless, of course, you do it yourself.

Have fun emptying those wastebaskets."

As wonderful a startup may seem from a hundred thousand feet from the outside, it can really be NO FUN dealing with the most basic issues, way deep in the weeds.

Marc goes through a pretty comprehensive list of things to watch out for before getting excited about doing a startup.

One thing Id add would be that more likely than not, the startup will need to meaningfully change its product and/or service direction at least once or more in the first three years.

Almost every startup you can think of started off as one thing and eventually became something very different way before making the transition from private to a public company.

Microsoft in its earliest days was a programming tools company, not an operating system and application company.

Yahoo! started out as a directory of websites, not a media portal/web-based online service.

Google, of course started out as a search company, but didnt become the Google money machine we know, until it built its keyword advertising system.

These are only the most well-known examples.

Whats not often understood by outsiders, is how wrenching the product/service evolution process is  for all involved in a startup.  This of course includes the  founders, management, employees, customers, and investors.

Unfortunately, this is more the norm than the exception for most startups.

And most of the time, its not anticipated in the founders plans before they buy the first waste basket.

MIA

Something Robert Scoble says in his post on the Age Discussion/Debate raging on Techmeme, caught my eye:

"Anyway, this debate between the youngins and the old is as old as life itself."

Hes right of course, but theres something else.

Going back over the various posts the last couple of days in the Techmeme subject on this thread, it hit me:  there arent too many posts from the net natives UNDER 30 in this thread. 

Most of them seem to be from us net natives of old, arguing about this amongst ourselves as it were.

Maybe the "youngins", as Robert calls them, dont read Techmeme?  Or maybe they dont blog as much as us "old" ones?

MIA

Something Robert Scoble says in his post on the Age Discussion/Debate raging on Techmeme, caught my eye:

"Anyway, this debate between the youngins and the old is as old as life itself."

Hes right of course, but theres something else.

Going back over the various posts the last couple of days in the Techmeme subject on this thread, it hit me:  there arent too many posts from the net natives UNDER 30 in this thread. 

Most of them seem to be from us net natives of old, arguing about this amongst ourselves as it were.

Maybe the "youngins", as Robert calls them, dont read Techmeme?  Or maybe they dont blog as much as us "old" ones?

BEING COUNTED

Stan Schroeder of Frantic Industries has an interesting review of 10 "Web operating systems".  He defines these as:

"...a WebOS is defined as virtual operating system that runs in a web browser environement. Don’t like WebOS? Well, call it OnlineOS, or WebTop if you like."

Whats interesting also is that despite all the current excitement, Facebook isnt on the list of ten.  But thats because Facebook hasnt been defined as a "web browser environment"...yet.

BEING COUNTED

Stan Schroeder of Frantic Industries has an interesting review of 10 "Web operating systems".  He defines these as:

"...a WebOS is defined as virtual operating system that runs in a web browser environement. Don’t like WebOS? Well, call it OnlineOS, or WebTop if you like."

Whats interesting also is that despite all the current excitement, Facebook isnt on the list of ten.  But thats because Facebook hasnt been defined as a "web browser environment"...yet.

BEING COUNTED

Stan Schroeder of Frantic Industries has an interesting review of 10 "Web operating systems".  He defines these as:

"...a WebOS is defined as virtual operating system that runs in a web browser environement. Don’t like WebOS? Well, call it OnlineOS, or WebTop if you like."

Whats interesting also is that despite all the current excitement, Facebook isnt on the list of ten.  But thats because Facebook hasnt been defined as a "web browser environment"...yet.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Fred Wilson has a post titled "The Age Question (final post)" clarifying his position in the "young vs. old" net natives discussion his original post kicked off a few days ago (its still the leading discussion on Techmeme this Sunday morning (see my post on this yesterday).

Specifically, Fred highlights the key point that came out of a conversation with his partner Brad Burnham:

"But Brad and I were talking on Friday about the sheer volume of young entrepreneurs we are seeing that is unprecedented in my 20 years in the VC business. Contrary to one of the comments from yesterday, this is not like what happened during the bubble.

Back then it was newly minted MBAs starting companies out of greed. This is different. This is 15 to 20 year old kids building and launching authentic web services that fill a real need in the market."

I think the anecdotal data point highlighted by Fred and Brad is important to note. 

That theyre seeing more 20 somethings walking into their offices STARTING companies is definitely interesting.

But whats also interesting that more 20 somethings have been ADOPTING new web services en mass, especially ones that have a key social networking element.

It is this group that have been making various startups that rely on some aspect of "social networking" in their operational models, very big, very fast through viral adoption into their daily lives.

The anecdotal evidence here is also interesting, whether one considers not just the obvious adoption of a Facebook or a MySpace, but also companies like Bebo, Skype in Europe or CyWorld (online games) in Asia.

The case can be made that 20 somethings have also been ADOPTING services with a social networking twist, faster than others segments of the population.  Anecdotally of course for now.

Have you noticed that the 20 somethings on Facebook or MySpace seem to have far more "friends" than the rest of us over 30?

They seem to have "friends" lists in the hundreds compared to a few dozen for the rest of us.

But consider that younger "net natives" are in environments that are far more conducive to assembling a much bigger number of "friends" than the rest of us, after we leave school.  And their key priorities in life are much simpler in that phase of their lives than after they go on into the world.

School, whether its high school or college, provides a much more organized framework to build a large number of acquaintances and friends in a short period of time. 

In particular, it obviously helps build large, physical social networks in the real world, in a SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL location, than anything else we do in life after we leave school.

Its the core element that Facebook in particular took advantage of so brilliantly in its early years.  Its first incarnation was an online version of a Yearbook.

After school, our network of friends gets so much more disparate and diffused, both geographically and otherwise. 

As do the priorities that drive us.

Not to mention that we adopt far more identities after school than in school (employee, boss, parent, PTA member, volunteer, being just a few of the obvious ones).

In fact, the one thing that still irks me about Facebook the most is that it limits me to just one geographical network at a time.

Its a vestigial element of its beginnings that it still needs to grow out of.

The fact is that as adults, we have networks that utterly grow beyond geographical boundaries.

And as Seinfelds George Costanza put it so well in the immortal "Pool Guy" episode, Facebook makes my "Worlds Collide*", whether I like it or not.  Thats the second thing that most grown-ups have to come to terms with about Facebook.  Worlds colliding is a much lesser concern for younger net natives.

The relationships in these "grown-up" networks also get focused on matters more complex than just "hanging out" or "hooking up" with a school-mate (Dave Winer makes a spot on point on this, pointing to the relationship definition dialog box one gets in Facebook even today).

In hindsight its not surprising that the super-successful social networks (Facebook and MySpace), that are so affecting the net world view of most of the Silicon Valley geek community at the moment, have all been fueled by these potent, real-world social networks of the younger "net natives".

Its not that us older net natives are not as "with it". 

It may just be that the two generations are not an even playing field when it comes to physical and virtual social networks.

But thats the way its always been. 

Were just overly obsessed by the digital versions of these networks for now, as defined by just a small number of companies at this early stage.  For now.

P.S.  Ive started a group called "Net Natives of Old" on Facebook for continuing discussions on this issue and its many facets. 

Its open for anyone to join and start a discussion.

*  Heres how George Costanza puts it most eloquently, about worlds colliding and mushing up so many of ones identities:

"You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing.  If she is allowed to infiltrate this world then George Costanza as you now him ceases to exist.

You see, right now I have Relationship George.  But there is also Independent George.  Thats the George you know, the George you grew up with...Movie George, Coffee Shop George, Liar George, Bawdy George"

(Seinfeld):  "I love that George."

(George):  "Me too, and hes dying.  If Relationship George walks through this door, he will kill Independent George.  A George divided against itself cannot stand!"

-George and Jerry, in "The Pool Guy"

Well said, George.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Fred Wilson has a post titled "The Age Question (final post)" clarifying his position in the "young vs. old" net natives discussion his original post kicked off a few days ago (its still the leading discussion on Techmeme this Sunday morning (see my post on this yesterday).

Specifically, Fred highlights the key point that came out of a conversation with his partner Brad Burnham:

"But Brad and I were talking on Friday about the sheer volume of young entrepreneurs we are seeing that is unprecedented in my 20 years in the VC business. Contrary to one of the comments from yesterday, this is not like what happened during the bubble.

Back then it was newly minted MBAs starting companies out of greed. This is different. This is 15 to 20 year old kids building and launching authentic web services that fill a real need in the market."

I think the anecdotal data point highlighted by Fred and Brad is important to note. 

That theyre seeing more 20 somethings walking into their offices STARTING companies is definitely interesting.

But whats also interesting that more 20 somethings have been ADOPTING new web services en mass, especially ones that have a key social networking element.

It is this group that have been making various startups that rely on some aspect of "social networking" in their operational models, very big, very fast through viral adoption into their daily lives.

The anecdotal evidence here is also interesting, whether one considers not just the obvious adoption of a Facebook or a MySpace, but also companies like Bebo, Skype in Europe or CyWorld (online games) in Asia.

The case can be made that 20 somethings have also been ADOPTING services with a social networking twist, faster than others segments of the population.  Anecdotally of course for now.

Have you noticed that the 20 somethings on Facebook or MySpace seem to have far more "friends" than the rest of us over 30?

They seem to have "friends" lists in the hundreds compared to a few dozen for the rest of us.

But consider that younger "net natives" are in environments that are far more conducive to assembling a much bigger number of "friends" than the rest of us, after we leave school.  And their key priorities in life are much simpler in that phase of their lives than after they go on into the world.

School, whether its high school or college, provides a much more organized framework to build a large number of acquaintances and friends in a short period of time. 

In particular, it obviously helps build large, physical social networks in the real world, in a SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL location, than anything else we do in life after we leave school.

Its the core element that Facebook in particular took advantage of so brilliantly in its early years.  Its first incarnation was an online version of a Yearbook.

After school, our network of friends gets so much more disparate and diffused, both geographically and otherwise. 

As do the priorities that drive us.

Not to mention that we adopt far more identities after school than in school (employee, boss, parent, PTA member, volunteer, being just a few of the obvious ones).

In fact, the one thing that still irks me about Facebook the most is that it limits me to just one geographical network at a time.

Its a vestigial element of its beginnings that it still needs to grow out of.

The fact is that as adults, we have networks that utterly grow beyond geographical boundaries.

And as Seinfelds George Costanza put it so well in the immortal "Pool Guy" episode, Facebook makes my "Worlds Collide*", whether I like it or not.  Thats the second thing that most grown-ups have to come to terms with about Facebook.  Worlds colliding is a much lesser concern for younger net natives.

The relationships in these "grown-up" networks also get focused on matters more complex than just "hanging out" or "hooking up" with a school-mate (Dave Winer makes a spot on point on this, pointing to the relationship definition dialog box one gets in Facebook even today).

In hindsight its not surprising that the super-successful social networks (Facebook and MySpace), that are so affecting the net world view of most of the Silicon Valley geek community at the moment, have all been fueled by these potent, real-world social networks of the younger "net natives".

Its not that us older net natives are not as "with it". 

It may just be that the two generations are not an even playing field when it comes to physical and virtual social networks.

But thats the way its always been. 

Were just overly obsessed by the digital versions of these networks for now, as defined by just a small number of companies at this early stage.  For now.

P.S.  Ive started a group called "Net Natives of Old" on Facebook for continuing discussions on this issue and its many facets. 

Its open for anyone to join and start a discussion.

*  Heres how George Costanza puts it most eloquently, about worlds colliding and mushing up so many of ones identities:

"You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing.  If she is allowed to infiltrate this world then George Costanza as you now him ceases to exist.

You see, right now I have Relationship George.  But there is also Independent George.  Thats the George you know, the George you grew up with...Movie George, Coffee Shop George, Liar George, Bawdy George"

(Seinfeld):  "I love that George."

(George):  "Me too, and hes dying.  If Relationship George walks through this door, he will kill Independent George.  A George divided against itself cannot stand!"

-George and Jerry, in "The Pool Guy"

Well said, George.

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS

Fred Wilson has a post titled "The Age Question (final post)" clarifying his position in the "young vs. old" net natives discussion his original post kicked off a few days ago (its still the leading discussion on Techmeme this Sunday morning (see my post on this yesterday).

Specifically, Fred highlights the key point that came out of a conversation with his partner Brad Burnham:

"But Brad and I were talking on Friday about the sheer volume of young entrepreneurs we are seeing that is unprecedented in my 20 years in the VC business. Contrary to one of the comments from yesterday, this is not like what happened during the bubble.

Back then it was newly minted MBAs starting companies out of greed. This is different. This is 15 to 20 year old kids building and launching authentic web services that fill a real need in the market."

I think the anecdotal data point highlighted by Fred and Brad is important to note. 

That theyre seeing more 20 somethings walking into their offices STARTING companies is definitely interesting.

But whats also interesting that more 20 somethings have been ADOPTING new web services en mass, especially ones that have a key social networking element.

It is this group that have been making various startups that rely on some aspect of "social networking" in their operational models, very big, very fast through viral adoption into their daily lives.

The anecdotal evidence here is also interesting, whether one considers not just the obvious adoption of a Facebook or a MySpace, but also companies like Bebo, Skype in Europe or CyWorld (online games) in Asia.

The case can be made that 20 somethings have also been ADOPTING services with a social networking twist, faster than others segments of the population.  Anecdotally of course for now.

Have you noticed that the 20 somethings on Facebook or MySpace seem to have far more "friends" than the rest of us over 30?

They seem to have "friends" lists in the hundreds compared to a few dozen for the rest of us.

But consider that younger "net natives" are in environments that are far more conducive to assembling a much bigger number of "friends" than the rest of us, after we leave school.  And their key priorities in life are much simpler in that phase of their lives than after they go on into the world.

School, whether its high school or college, provides a much more organized framework to build a large number of acquaintances and friends in a short period of time. 

In particular, it obviously helps build large, physical social networks in the real world, in a SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL location, than anything else we do in life after we leave school.

Its the core element that Facebook in particular took advantage of so brilliantly in its early years.  Its first incarnation was an online version of a Yearbook.

After school, our network of friends gets so much more disparate and diffused, both geographically and otherwise. 

As do the priorities that drive us.

Not to mention that we adopt far more identities after school than in school (employee, boss, parent, PTA member, volunteer, being just a few of the obvious ones).

In fact, the one thing that still irks me about Facebook the most is that it limits me to just one geographical network at a time.

Its a vestigial element of its beginnings that it still needs to grow out of.

The fact is that as adults, we have networks that utterly grow beyond geographical boundaries.

And as Seinfelds George Costanza put it so well in the immortal "Pool Guy" episode, Facebook makes my "Worlds Collide*", whether I like it or not.  Thats the second thing that most grown-ups have to come to terms with about Facebook.  Worlds colliding is a much lesser concern for younger net natives.

The relationships in these "grown-up" networks also get focused on matters more complex than just "hanging out" or "hooking up" with a school-mate (Dave Winer makes a spot on point on this, pointing to the relationship definition dialog box one gets in Facebook even today).

In hindsight its not surprising that the super-successful social networks (Facebook and MySpace), that are so affecting the net world view of most of the Silicon Valley geek community at the moment, have all been fueled by these potent, real-world social networks of the younger "net natives".

Its not that us older net natives are not as "with it". 

It may just be that the two generations are not an even playing field when it comes to physical and virtual social networks.

But thats the way its always been. 

Were just overly obsessed by the digital versions of these networks for now, as defined by just a small number of companies at this early stage.  For now.

P.S.  Ive started a group called "Net Natives of Old" on Facebook for continuing discussions on this issue and its many facets. 

Its open for anyone to join and start a discussion.

*  Heres how George Costanza puts it most eloquently, about worlds colliding and mushing up so many of ones identities:

"You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing.  If she is allowed to infiltrate this world then George Costanza as you now him ceases to exist.

You see, right now I have Relationship George.  But there is also Independent George.  Thats the George you know, the George you grew up with...Movie George, Coffee Shop George, Liar George, Bawdy George"

(Seinfeld):  "I love that George."

(George):  "Me too, and hes dying.  If Relationship George walks through this door, he will kill Independent George.  A George divided against itself cannot stand!"

-George and Jerry, in "The Pool Guy"

Well said, George.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Theres a palpable frenzy around Facebook in recent weeks as this CNET story highlights. 

Its happening obviously, as developers, entrepreneurs, VCs and users get their minds around what the companys recently announced F8 platform strategy means longer term.

No less a personage than Marc Andreessen has declared Facebook a seminal milestone in the on-going history of the internet.

Not a day goes by without a Techmeme discussion thread on something Facebook.  Today is no different.

But as I explore the various parts of the exploding Facebook eco-system in recent days, Ive been feeling a little sense of deja vu.

Whats interesting about the Facebook fever, is how its simultaneously  hitting net veterans, media veterans, and net natives.  Net Natives of course, are members of the younger generation whove not experienced much traditional or online media before AOL.

The net veterans see in Facebook, the opportunity to witness another major platform in the making, along the lines of a Microsoft or a Google.

The media veterans see in Facebook, the possibility of the next media money machine emerging, along the lines of a next-gen MTV, or a Bloomberg.  Anecdotally, Jeff Jarvis observes in a recent post, that Mark Zuckerberg, the 23-year old founder and CEO of Facebook had the seat of honor next to Rupert Murdoch at dinner during the latest News Corp. off-site gathering for its executives:

"Murdoch sat next to Zuckerberg and he was clearly enchanted; they stayed head-to-head all through the meal.

Mark left to get back up north and in a flash, MySpace founder and now Murdochian Chris DeWolfe came dashing over, as if he were jealous of the attention Dad had given that other kid."

And the net natives?  Well, they seem to be breathless about Facebook the world over.  Note this post from Ramesh Jain, commenting on a recent brief business trip to Mumbai, India:

"In this trip, however, I got a chance to hear some young people (three 19 year old girls) talk about what they like and dislike on Internet.  Their excitement about Facebook was something to be experienced. 

It appears that Facebook has become the most important medium for social communication among them. They love everything about Facebook and they are ecstatic about the new application environment. 

They think now they have everything that they need to remain in touch with all their friends.  They repeatedly mentioned that they are on Facebook all the time."

And as Fred Wilson observes about "net natives" in another post on his series on Age of internet entrepreneurs (discussed earlier),

"It is incredibly hard to think of new paradigms when youve grown up reading the newspaper every morning. When you turn to TV for your entertainment. When you read magazines on the train home from work.

But we have a generation coming of age right now that has never relied on newspapers, TV, and magazines for their information and entertainment.

They are the net natives. They grew up in AOL chatrooms, IMing with their friends for hours after dinner, and went to school with a Facebook login."

But that exactly is the moment of deja vu for me.

Facebook today feels like a web-based AOL.

You log in to do anything.

You keep logging in because you get logged out if there are big periods of inactivity.

You log in to keep in touch with your friends, just like todays net natives did in AOLs chat rooms and IM sessions.

You exchange emails back and forth with them using Facebooks walled, proprietary, email system.

You select your "buddies" that you want to keep tabs on, and stay in touch with throughout the day.

Theres not much one does in the core functions of Facebook today, that you couldnt or didnt do with AOLs AIM and ICQ instant messaging systems of almost a decade ago.

There are a lot of differences of course is a vis AOL, key among them being that ones identity is crystal clear in Facebook, while on AOL, one could be interacting with anybody and their dog.

The other difference of course is that the various applications and content services within AOL are being created in Facebook in a de-centralized manner, with third parties taking the lead.  There likely will be applications that emerge in Facebook that were never possible in the worlds of AOL.

And unlike AOL, various applications will battle it out in a Darwinian fashion within the Facebook platform to emerge as the leader.  After all, how many music social networking sites can thrive longer-term in the Facebook eco-system?

But while the net natives may not be yearning to re-create a newspaper, TV or magazine in this new "Web 2.0" realm, they may be sub-consciously trying to re-create an AOL of sorts.

How does it go?  The more things change...

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Theres a palpable frenzy around Facebook in recent weeks as this CNET story highlights. 

Its happening obviously, as developers, entrepreneurs, VCs and users get their minds around what the companys recently announced F8 platform strategy means longer term.

No less a personage than Marc Andreessen has declared Facebook a seminal milestone in the on-going history of the internet.

Not a day goes by without a Techmeme discussion thread on something Facebook.  Today is no different.

But as I explore the various parts of the exploding Facebook eco-system in recent days, Ive been feeling a little sense of deja vu.

Whats interesting about the Facebook fever, is how its simultaneously  hitting net veterans, media veterans, and net natives.  Net Natives of course, are members of the younger generation whove not experienced much traditional or online media before AOL.

The net veterans see in Facebook, the opportunity to witness another major platform in the making, along the lines of a Microsoft or a Google.

The media veterans see in Facebook, the possibility of the next media money machine emerging, along the lines of a next-gen MTV, or a Bloomberg.  Anecdotally, Jeff Jarvis observes in a recent post, that Mark Zuckerberg, the 23-year old founder and CEO of Facebook had the seat of honor next to Rupert Murdoch at dinner during the latest News Corp. off-site gathering for its executives:

"Murdoch sat next to Zuckerberg and he was clearly enchanted; they stayed head-to-head all through the meal.

Mark left to get back up north and in a flash, MySpace founder and now Murdochian Chris DeWolfe came dashing over, as if he were jealous of the attention Dad had given that other kid."

And the net natives?  Well, they seem to be breathless about Facebook the world over.  Note this post from Ramesh Jain, commenting on a recent brief business trip to Mumbai, India:

"In this trip, however, I got a chance to hear some young people (three 19 year old girls) talk about what they like and dislike on Internet.  Their excitement about Facebook was something to be experienced. 

It appears that Facebook has become the most important medium for social communication among them. They love everything about Facebook and they are ecstatic about the new application environment. 

They think now they have everything that they need to remain in touch with all their friends.  They repeatedly mentioned that they are on Facebook all the time."

And as Fred Wilson observes about "net natives" in another post on his series on Age of internet entrepreneurs (discussed earlier),

"It is incredibly hard to think of new paradigms when youve grown up reading the newspaper every morning. When you turn to TV for your entertainment. When you read magazines on the train home from work.

But we have a generation coming of age right now that has never relied on newspapers, TV, and magazines for their information and entertainment.

They are the net natives. They grew up in AOL chatrooms, IMing with their friends for hours after dinner, and went to school with a Facebook login."

But that exactly is the moment of deja vu for me.

Facebook today feels like a web-based AOL.

You log in to do anything.

You keep logging in because you get logged out if there are big periods of inactivity.

You log in to keep in touch with your friends, just like todays net natives did in AOLs chat rooms and IM sessions.

You exchange emails back and forth with them using Facebooks walled, proprietary, email system.

You select your "buddies" that you want to keep tabs on, and stay in touch with throughout the day.

Theres not much one does in the core functions of Facebook today, that you couldnt or didnt do with AOLs AIM and ICQ instant messaging systems of almost a decade ago.

There are a lot of differences of course is a vis AOL, key among them being that ones identity is crystal clear in Facebook, while on AOL, one could be interacting with anybody and their dog.

The other difference of course is that the various applications and content services within AOL are being created in Facebook in a de-centralized manner, with third parties taking the lead.  There likely will be applications that emerge in Facebook that were never possible in the worlds of AOL.

And unlike AOL, various applications will battle it out in a Darwinian fashion within the Facebook platform to emerge as the leader.  After all, how many music social networking sites can thrive longer-term in the Facebook eco-system?

But while the net natives may not be yearning to re-create a newspaper, TV or magazine in this new "Web 2.0" realm, they may be sub-consciously trying to re-create an AOL of sorts.

How does it go?  The more things change...

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Theres a palpable frenzy around Facebook in recent weeks as this CNET story highlights. 

Its happening obviously, as developers, entrepreneurs, VCs and users get their minds around what the companys recently announced F8 platform strategy means longer term.

No less a personage than Marc Andreessen has declared Facebook a seminal milestone in the on-going history of the internet.

Not a day goes by without a Techmeme discussion thread on something Facebook.  Today is no different.

But as I explore the various parts of the exploding Facebook eco-system in recent days, Ive been feeling a little sense of deja vu.

Whats interesting about the Facebook fever, is how its simultaneously  hitting net veterans, media veterans, and net natives.  Net Natives of course, are members of the younger generation whove not experienced much traditional or online media before AOL.

The net veterans see in Facebook, the opportunity to witness another major platform in the making, along the lines of a Microsoft or a Google.

The media veterans see in Facebook, the possibility of the next media money machine emerging, along the lines of a next-gen MTV, or a Bloomberg.  Anecdotally, Jeff Jarvis observes in a recent post, that Mark Zuckerberg, the 23-year old founder and CEO of Facebook had the seat of honor next to Rupert Murdoch at dinner during the latest News Corp. off-site gathering for its executives:

"Murdoch sat next to Zuckerberg and he was clearly enchanted; they stayed head-to-head all through the meal.

Mark left to get back up north and in a flash, MySpace founder and now Murdochian Chris DeWolfe came dashing over, as if he were jealous of the attention Dad had given that other kid."

And the net natives?  Well, they seem to be breathless about Facebook the world over.  Note this post from Ramesh Jain, commenting on a recent brief business trip to Mumbai, India:

"In this trip, however, I got a chance to hear some young people (three 19 year old girls) talk about what they like and dislike on Internet.  Their excitement about Facebook was something to be experienced. 

It appears that Facebook has become the most important medium for social communication among them. They love everything about Facebook and they are ecstatic about the new application environment. 

They think now they have everything that they need to remain in touch with all their friends.  They repeatedly mentioned that they are on Facebook all the time."

And as Fred Wilson observes about "net natives" in another post on his series on Age of internet entrepreneurs (discussed earlier),

"It is incredibly hard to think of new paradigms when youve grown up reading the newspaper every morning. When you turn to TV for your entertainment. When you read magazines on the train home from work.

But we have a generation coming of age right now that has never relied on newspapers, TV, and magazines for their information and entertainment.

They are the net natives. They grew up in AOL chatrooms, IMing with their friends for hours after dinner, and went to school with a Facebook login."

But that exactly is the moment of deja vu for me.

Facebook today feels like a web-based AOL.

You log in to do anything.

You keep logging in because you get logged out if there are big periods of inactivity.

You log in to keep in touch with your friends, just like todays net natives did in AOLs chat rooms and IM sessions.

You exchange emails back and forth with them using Facebooks walled, proprietary, email system.

You select your "buddies" that you want to keep tabs on, and stay in touch with throughout the day.

Theres not much one does in the core functions of Facebook today, that you couldnt or didnt do with AOLs AIM and ICQ instant messaging systems of almost a decade ago.

There are a lot of differences of course is a vis AOL, key among them being that ones identity is crystal clear in Facebook, while on AOL, one could be interacting with anybody and their dog.

The other difference of course is that the various applications and content services within AOL are being created in Facebook in a de-centralized manner, with third parties taking the lead.  There likely will be applications that emerge in Facebook that were never possible in the worlds of AOL.

And unlike AOL, various applications will battle it out in a Darwinian fashion within the Facebook platform to emerge as the leader.  After all, how many music social networking sites can thrive longer-term in the Facebook eco-system?

But while the net natives may not be yearning to re-create a newspaper, TV or magazine in this new "Web 2.0" realm, they may be sub-consciously trying to re-create an AOL of sorts.

How does it go?  The more things change...

READ, SET...

Well, the race to out-facebook Facebook I talked about a few days ago, has begun. 

Incumbent social networks are starting to emulate Facebook by articulating their intentions to "open up their networks", and pursue some form of a platform strategy.

Techmeme is abuzz with news that LinkedIn, which focuses on business-based social networks, is planning just such a move.  The company happens to share investors with Facebook, interestingly enough.

The whole thing reminds me of the 1963 classic movie, represented by the adjacent poster.

And theres another entrant in the race, as expected.

Just as Robert Scoble intimated a couple of days ago,  Plaxo is rolling out its new, web-based, strategy, to also emulate Facebook.  Again, heres how Robert describes the roll-out:

"It’s now a Web service.

In fact you can use Plaxo without loading any software. All to manage your contacts.

For someone like me that still has most of my contacts in Outlook the new Plaxo is a godsend. It lets me move my contacts, my calendar data, and other things out of Outlook and onto other platforms.

You can move things over to Google, AIM, Yahoo, the Mac’s iCal, and a variety of other applications and cell phones...

...On the other hand it now is encroaching on social networking apps like LinkedIn and Facebook."

A lot of the features are on the come, with the current release being a pretty early beta.  But they too have started down the Facebook road.

The one Im really waiting for is the current big-daddy of social networks, MySpace, to do an about-face and start to down the Facebook platform road.  They were going full-speed in the opposite direction, when Facebook showed its hand by going the other way.

Before its all said and done, itll be a full-fledged, mad-rush by dozens of companies trying to do this "social network platform" thing. 

Get ready to import and export your contacts and "friends" lists all over the place, into and out of all kinds of social networks, up and down your "social graph".

Its going to exhausting but fun.  And hopefully profitable.