Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
william
Is this you? Claim Profile »
5 months ago
in Private: Twitter Apps Can Only Grow so Far on The SocialToo Blog
The Elephant in the room
If you are an Open Source Developer or Content creator (If you are a member of either service you are a content creator) you should not use Facebook or Twitter.
By using Facebook or Twitter you are essentially raising the value of their companies and applications. Both Facebook and Twitter are closed source content silos that do not allow you to control the content that you create. Neither Facebook or Twitter put the content creator/members at the top of their pyramids when thinking about revenue models. Each of these companies puts their Companies first above the members and communities that have given them value and money.
If you are a developer you may be able to make some money by creating applications for Facebook or Twitter ; but I do not believe that Facebook or Twitter will ever allow your application to eat into their user base or their revenue. Because they are both closed source companies that have the ability to literally cut you off by changing the code/api or by using their proprietary knowledge to build an application that you can not possibly compete with. As a coder understand that when you build and extend Facebook or Twitters propitiatory platforms that you undermine the longevity of the Open Internet.
Content owners and Developers do not help these closed source companies (Twitter and Facebook) in their goal of creating another closed source content trap that will extract hundreds of Millions on dollars from their member and developer communities and give nothing back in return.
If you are an Open Source Developer or Content creator (If you are a member of either service you are a content creator) you should not use Facebook or Twitter.
By using Facebook or Twitter you are essentially raising the value of their companies and applications. Both Facebook and Twitter are closed source content silos that do not allow you to control the content that you create. Neither Facebook or Twitter put the content creator/members at the top of their pyramids when thinking about revenue models. Each of these companies puts their Companies first above the members and communities that have given them value and money.
If you are a developer you may be able to make some money by creating applications for Facebook or Twitter ; but I do not believe that Facebook or Twitter will ever allow your application to eat into their user base or their revenue. Because they are both closed source companies that have the ability to literally cut you off by changing the code/api or by using their proprietary knowledge to build an application that you can not possibly compete with. As a coder understand that when you build and extend Facebook or Twitters propitiatory platforms that you undermine the longevity of the Open Internet.
Content owners and Developers do not help these closed source companies (Twitter and Facebook) in their goal of creating another closed source content trap that will extract hundreds of Millions on dollars from their member and developer communities and give nothing back in return.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
5 months ago
in Custom tags to make Facebook apps faster, more interesting and ubiquitous on VentureBeat
The Elephant in the room
If you are an Open Source Developer or Content creator (If you are a member of either service you are a content creator) you should not use Facebook.
By using Facebook you are essentially raising the value of their company and their application Facebook is a closed source content silos that does not allow you to control the content that you create.
Facebook does not put the content creator/members at the top of their pyramids when thinking about revenue models. Facebook puts their Facebook first above the members and communities that have given them value and revenue.
If you are a developer you may be able to make some money by creating applications for Facebook ; but I do not believe that Facebook will ever allow your application to eat into their user base or their revenue. Because Facebook is a closed source companies that have the ability to literally cut you off by changing the code/api or by using their proprietary knowledge to build an application that you can not possibly compete with.
As a coder understand that when you build and extend Facebooks propitiatory platforms that you undermine the longevity of the Open Internet.
Content owners and Developers do not help closed source companies (Facebook) in their goal of creating another closed source content trap that will extract hundreds of Millions on dollars from their member and developer communities and give nothing back in return.
If you are an Open Source Developer or Content creator (If you are a member of either service you are a content creator) you should not use Facebook.
By using Facebook you are essentially raising the value of their company and their application Facebook is a closed source content silos that does not allow you to control the content that you create.
Facebook does not put the content creator/members at the top of their pyramids when thinking about revenue models. Facebook puts their Facebook first above the members and communities that have given them value and revenue.
If you are a developer you may be able to make some money by creating applications for Facebook ; but I do not believe that Facebook will ever allow your application to eat into their user base or their revenue. Because Facebook is a closed source companies that have the ability to literally cut you off by changing the code/api or by using their proprietary knowledge to build an application that you can not possibly compete with.
As a coder understand that when you build and extend Facebooks propitiatory platforms that you undermine the longevity of the Open Internet.
Content owners and Developers do not help closed source companies (Facebook) in their goal of creating another closed source content trap that will extract hundreds of Millions on dollars from their member and developer communities and give nothing back in return.
1 reply
Eric Eldon
Facebook keeps saying that its long-term plan is to become more and more open. Do you not believe the company?
6 months ago
in Confused yet? Fighting Facebook (and Google), MySpace updates data-sharing service on VentureBeat
So interesting that a short time ago Microsoft (A closed source company) wanted to push forward a standard (Passport) that would have give users the ability to have one log in that worked for many sites. At the time many in the tech and development community saw this as just another Microsoft Land Grab for our Identity and our Content. Many people saw Passport as a Microsoft effort to finally gain control of the internet by becoming the standard for digital identity.
Today we have no less than 3 closed source companies (Myspace,Facebook, Gog) in a race to become the "Standard" for holding or Identity and therefore having access to the content that we read and the content that we creates.
All of this at a time when there are many Open Source standards that could be used (Openid is just one that comes to mind) that if properly deployed would do the right thing by putting the user/member in charge of their log in as well as their relationships across many sites.
Have we forgotten the lesson of the not so distance past ?
Why do we not see a problem with the big 3 trying to become the proprietary standard in this very important area ?
Why do developers especially Open Source developers continue to build and extend applications for closed source companies that under mind open source standards and ideals ?
Why do users continue to view giving control of their identity and content to these companies as a win, when in fact the win is clearly on the side of the company that you have allowed to take control of your identity and to generate value and revenue from your content. In return for our compliance we do not even have a right to take our identity and our content where we want.
Open Source developers, please do not write any code to extend the propitiatory services of Facebook. They are not your "Friend" When you write code for a company like Facebok you undermine the integrity of the Open Web.
Today we have no less than 3 closed source companies (Myspace,Facebook, Gog) in a race to become the "Standard" for holding or Identity and therefore having access to the content that we read and the content that we creates.
All of this at a time when there are many Open Source standards that could be used (Openid is just one that comes to mind) that if properly deployed would do the right thing by putting the user/member in charge of their log in as well as their relationships across many sites.
Have we forgotten the lesson of the not so distance past ?
Why do we not see a problem with the big 3 trying to become the proprietary standard in this very important area ?
Why do developers especially Open Source developers continue to build and extend applications for closed source companies that under mind open source standards and ideals ?
Why do users continue to view giving control of their identity and content to these companies as a win, when in fact the win is clearly on the side of the company that you have allowed to take control of your identity and to generate value and revenue from your content. In return for our compliance we do not even have a right to take our identity and our content where we want.
Open Source developers, please do not write any code to extend the propitiatory services of Facebook. They are not your "Friend" When you write code for a company like Facebok you undermine the integrity of the Open Web.
1 reply
Unnamed
Did you even read the article. MySpace and google are using open standards. oAuth and OpenID...
7 months ago
in Google Friend Connect tries to sneak up on Facebook Connect (again) on VentureBeat
Hail to the Thieves
So interesting that a short time ago Microsoft (A closed source company) wanted to push forward a standard (Passport) that would have give users the ability to have one log in that worked for many sites. At the time many in the tech and development community saw this as just another Microsoft Land Grab for our Identity and our Content. Many people saw Passport a Microsoft effort to finally gain control of the internet by becoming the standard for digital identity.
Today we have no less than 3 closed source companies in a race to become the "Standard" for holding or Identity and therefore having access to the content that we read and the content that we creates.
All of this at a time when there are many Open Source standards that could be used (Openid is just one that comes to mind) that if properly deployed would do the right thing by putting the user/member in charge of their log in as well as their relationships across many sites.
Have we forgotten the lesson of the not so distance past ?
Why do we not see a problem with the big 3 trying to become the proprietary standard in this very important area ?
Why do developers especially Open Source developers continue to build and extend applications for closed source companies that under mind open source standards and ideals ?
Why do users continue to view giving control of their identity and content to these companies as a win, when in fact the win is clearly on the side of the company that you have allowed to take control of your identity and to generate value and revenue from your content. In return for our compliance we do not even have a right to take our identity and our content where we want.
So interesting that a short time ago Microsoft (A closed source company) wanted to push forward a standard (Passport) that would have give users the ability to have one log in that worked for many sites. At the time many in the tech and development community saw this as just another Microsoft Land Grab for our Identity and our Content. Many people saw Passport a Microsoft effort to finally gain control of the internet by becoming the standard for digital identity.
Today we have no less than 3 closed source companies in a race to become the "Standard" for holding or Identity and therefore having access to the content that we read and the content that we creates.
All of this at a time when there are many Open Source standards that could be used (Openid is just one that comes to mind) that if properly deployed would do the right thing by putting the user/member in charge of their log in as well as their relationships across many sites.
Have we forgotten the lesson of the not so distance past ?
Why do we not see a problem with the big 3 trying to become the proprietary standard in this very important area ?
Why do developers especially Open Source developers continue to build and extend applications for closed source companies that under mind open source standards and ideals ?
Why do users continue to view giving control of their identity and content to these companies as a win, when in fact the win is clearly on the side of the company that you have allowed to take control of your identity and to generate value and revenue from your content. In return for our compliance we do not even have a right to take our identity and our content where we want.
1 reply
Eric Eldon
william, I understand your argument. The problem is that the sort of cooperative action you're hoping for is extremely hard to organize -- and then channel to create a compelling product for users. If it weren't, OpenID et al would have won already.
Pushing the closed-source winners to be more open is perhaps a more efficient course of action.
Pushing the closed-source winners to be more open is perhaps a more efficient course of action.
7 months ago
in louisgray.com: Twitter Withdraws Plans for Supporting OpenMicroblogging on louisgray.com
Open Source Developers and users, Break the chains of web 2.0 share cropping. Understand that Twitter is a closed source application and more than likely will want any Open Source competitor to their service to fail.
Twitter the friendly little bird wants to become a closed source monopoly. Twitter wants to lock you and your content into their closed silo and they want to generate millions in revenue off of your content, and for this they will give you nothing back to you or your community in return.
With an Open Source solution you at least have a copy of the application that you have given value. With Open Source you have a choice. If you want to do things differently you are "Free" to take the software and do so. This kind of Freedom also keeps any ideas of vendor/data/content lock in out of the picture.
Twitter the friendly little bird wants to become a closed source monopoly. Twitter wants to lock you and your content into their closed silo and they want to generate millions in revenue off of your content, and for this they will give you nothing back to you or your community in return.
With an Open Source solution you at least have a copy of the application that you have given value. With Open Source you have a choice. If you want to do things differently you are "Free" to take the software and do so. This kind of Freedom also keeps any ideas of vendor/data/content lock in out of the picture.
- 2 points
- Jump to »
Louis Gray
One of the biggest problems of open source is exactly what it tries to
fight against - profits and centralization. Twitter has a strong
leadership position that enables them to keep their network closed.
What's most frustrating to Jesse and others, I would guess, is how
they make small steps toward improving the product and developer
relations and then do a complete 180 and go the other way. Why lead on
its most supportive partners and then pull the rug out?
fight against - profits and centralization. Twitter has a strong
leadership position that enables them to keep their network closed.
What's most frustrating to Jesse and others, I would guess, is how
they make small steps toward improving the product and developer
relations and then do a complete 180 and go the other way. Why lead on
its most supportive partners and then pull the rug out?
I say that because the source behind Twitter is not the hardest asset to copy: leveraging a community of practice is. The people behind the Open Stack and DiSo realized that their arch-enemy, Facebook Connect, not only offers a better experience (thanks to good UI and market-base) but also drive massive press and attention to their solutions. Just like them, you need to push Twitter (and its equivalents/competitors) to learn about how to do micro-blogging properly, and let people learn about micro-blogging.