DISQUS

I'd also add that Chrome is built on Webkit - the same as Safari. This means that it will run far faster than Firefox, whilst allowing the flexibility of plug-ins - kind of a mash up of Safari and Firefox, with a new AJAX system that makes it EVEN faster, built to work perfectly with gears and web apps generally.

So even before the huge jump forward in the operating system capacity, as a pure web browser this should rock.

James - if there's no cost then no-one has to pay. In this case, the only cost is the time to write - distribution is completely free. What Nic has been writing about is the shift of where the value is held. As in the music industry, news, and books, pure data is becoming impossible to charge for. The value is shifting to either the content producer themselves (whether that's watching a musician live, listening to a lecturer or having a researcher at your establishment); or the user engagement that your content creates, which can be sold to advertisers. All data thus becomes, essentially, a marketing tool for something 'real'.

Interestingly, Paulo Coelho now actively releases all his books free online. Why? He finds that his physical books actually sell better in countries where the book is spread heavily for free on P2P networks. The value is in the physical book; being able to have access to the raw words makes more people buy the book, rather than the opposite.

Completely agree with you on this one. Your brand is how it's perceived and interacted with by consumers. If Cartier/MySpace don't allow the users to interact with the Cartier brand the way they want to by simply not allowing them to connect at all, then it won't make more positive interactions about Cartier - it just won't make any. This then becomes essentially a glorified banner ad/microsite, and so misses out on the value that social networks have - namely the interactions between people.

You seem to be missing the whole point. 'Blogging' is simply a term for writing on the web. You may personally attach more memes to it, probably because you spend a lot of time perusing well thought out tech blogs, but the vast majority of blogs are personal notes, mainly meant for friends, on places like MySpace.

You may as well say that magazines aren't proper writing; only books are proper writing!

Twitter's a tool which allows you to maintain a blog-like website which you can update with small (micro) text (blogging). The term has absolutely no correlation to the quality or subject of the writing itself.

Hi Andrew,

I did a talk a while back on your findings to the Facebook Developer Garage in London, which I help organise. After posting about my talk ended having an discussion with a reader over some inputs which create a saw-tooth in the results, you might find the conversation interesting - http://www.joshuamarch.co.uk/2008/04/jumping-shark.html

Cheers,

Josh

I would add to this discussion the interaction between applications, pages and social ads.

Firstly, social ads aren't just for pages - they're for anything on Facebook, including groups and applications. Social ads all work on either a CPC or CPM rate depending on your choice and where you place them (newsfeed ads are currently only CPM), where'as most of the big application ad networks work off a CPI - Cost Per Install. I've ran ad campaigns on Facebook for applications and utilise a mix of these - CPI ads to get an initial userbase, then social ads as a cheaper option which makes use of the friend connections to spread it even further.

Secondly, in many campaigns I've been involved in we've made use of a focal fan page which we've used to seed a variety of relevant applications. We've also built bespoke applications purely for the functionality then can bring to a page.

So, I wouldn't say that they're in direct competition - just something different. If you want to build some form of viral game, or an in-depth, multi-page community on Facebook, you need to use applications, and sometimes pages are more suitable - or they can combine. It's not an either or.

Hi Nic,

Got to disagree with you on this one - I don't think there's anything wrong with this move. You can pay Google to have your website featured, and I'm pretty sure that this hasn't results in less websites being developed.

The truth is, advertising on the big social networks isn't monetising very well. Application platforms allow companies to actually engage with users rather than attempting to push interruptive adverts. The social networks can monetise their application platforms slightly by showing adverts around canvas pages, but this is very minimal - and nothing like the brand engagement of using the app itself. So, instead of shoving more and more adverts into the already crowded site, charging to have your application features on the app homepage and in relevant app category pages makes much more sense, is better for users as they only see it when looking for apps rather than just adverts around the site, better for brands who can effectively promote their applications, and better for MySpace who get to monetise the app platform properly.

This won't impinge on good applications which aren't paying - you only have to look at the huge viral success of many apps without any paid promotion to see that when an application does it right it will spread virally using the powerful viral channels on most social networks. And, if the platform is monetising well for MySpace, they'll put in more resources and time - so benefiting non-paying developers too.

Good post - note that Yahoo have joined the Open Social alliance, which suggests they'll be opening this up to external developers and communities.

Hi Nic,

Good post - it's been really good to watch Facebook tighten up its spam rules over the past couple of months, not just as a user, but also from a business perspective. As you say, making it harder for spammy, low engagement apps also makes it better for high engagement apps - with obvious benefits for companies or communities who provide this.

I'd also point out that advert monetisation isn't the only route - click-through rates will always be low on social network applications, and in fact the more you engage a user the less likely they are to click away. However, this engagement can be of huge value to brands in and of itself, and I expect that we'll see many more sponsored apps and applications created exclusively for brands.

Josh

I'll add to that, I expect to see far more branded 'community' focused applications coming out as we see the decline in spam/gimmick applications caused by general fatigue and the tightening of the notification/spam rules on Facebook and other platforms.

Hi Nick,

This is a valid point. A year ago, it could have been countered with the fact that niche social networks may have been able to include applications targeted towards their niche audience. However, with the open application platforms, it's now possible to create bespoke communities with any features you want by using applications, and these can even be cross platform (e.g. allowing Facebook app users to interact with MySpace app users).

This is something very relevant, as it is now much easier and cheaper for brands to create custom communities using applications that trying to get users to sign up to whole new social networks.

Josh