Recent Comment
Spotlight
Recent Comments
- Mike Dieffenbach: " They are, indeed, out of their minds. T ..." [go]
- Richard Ball: " Isn't it interesting that both Yahoo and ..." [go]
- about-advertising.info: " The question is difficult to answer. I g ..." [go]
- Devan: " Even if Nielsen were fairly accurate, wo ..." [go]
- Desire Athow: " Hey, guess what.... According to Alexa ( ..." [go]
- webconnoisseur: " It will be interesting to see what ComSc ..." [go]
- beşikçiler köyü: " thank you ..." [go]
- Rob Phillips: " If the figures are correct then its not ..." [go]
- Desire Athow: " Nice to see that Battellemedia has also ..." [go]
- Desire Athow: " Yahoo seems to have lost the plot comple ..." [go]
- Desire Athow: " I always say that Creative directors are ..." [go]
- Anthony Eden: " The same ad is in the Washington-Reagan ..." [go]
- JG: " Because Vista has its own that you ca ..." [go]
- Didier DURAND: " Hi John, Listen to this podcast from a ..." [go]
- Hiroko: " Why is content-based searching deactivat ..." [go]
- JG: " His job is to explain the motivations ..." [go]
PERFECT FOR THAT PERSON WITH EVERYTHING
Order 'The Search'
Yup, it makes the perfect gift for that officemate or colleague who you thought had everything....including you! If you order here, I promise to sign it, assuming we can figure out the shipping...
You can also buy the audio version here.
Check my book page for more info.
Blogger's Rights
Top Posts
- The Database of Intentions (or how this all got started)
- From Pull to Point(or the first post where I riff on the "Point-To Economy")
- Google As Builder (or the point at which Google stopped being simply a search engine)
- On Google v. Yahoo
- TV and Search Merge
- On Sell Side Advertising
- Battelle Gets Searchstreams
- Search and Immortality
- Toward the Endemic (on endemic advertising)
More coming soon...
Active Topics
- 24 comments: The Size of the Domain Market and Other Stats (01.11)
- 19 comments: Predictions 2008 (01.01)
- 14 comments: Why No One Comments on Google News (12.27)
- 11 comments: Curtain Rasier on Zuckerberg's 60 Minutes Interview (01.11)
- 10 comments: Yikes. Old School Media Is Hurting (01.09)
Monthly Archives
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
About John Battelle
Searchblog Newsletter
Enter email to subscribe to "Re-Find", Searchblog's weekly newsletter:
Calendar
Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Syndicate
Powered by
January 4, 2008 8:00 PM
It's Time For Services on The Web to Compete On More Than Data
The recent kerscobuffle around data portability got me thinking out loud about what the value of a social network really is - and by extension, any service that might claim to have "lock in" around our personal data.
For years now, a core (unresolved) issue in the Web 2 world has been data portability - with most of us - including me - arguing vaguely for the right to take our data where we want, when we want, without undue interference from the service that helped us aggregate it.
As the debate deepens, it seems there are two camps - first, the camp that says Facebook has either A. a right and/or B. an economic necessity to create a walled garden for our data. The second camp argues that Facebook - and any other walled garden - is A. Stupid or B. Greedy or C. Both.
I think I've been pretty consistent in my support of the less-than-nuanced second group of campers.
But I'm not entirely sure the debate is framed correctly. It assumes the key question is about whether or not the data can be ported. Instead the real value creation of a service is what that service allows a person to *do* with that data, once it's found its way there.
To frame the discussion, think about the idea of competing on the lowest price. This has always been a major point of pain in retail commerce - how can I compete on price if my costs of goods sold is the same (or, shudder, *higher*) than my competitors? My answer is to change the game: Don't compete on price. Compete on *service*.
An example. My local market charges far more for a good bottle of wine than many shops that are nearby. But there's a wine guy who works at that market who knows wine cold, and who I trust. Also, the market is close to my home, and I have a personal relationship with the fellow (OK, here's the reference to the book I'm working on - I have a "conversation" going with this merchant). Those factors, combined with a certain ambiance at the store that I really like, all lead to one result: I buy my wine at the more expensive store. Why? Because the store competes on more than price.
It's time that services on the web compete on more than just the data they aggregate.
I think the data portability crowd is driven by this idea, in the main - once we have real data portability, personal data becomes a commodity, and services then live or die not on data lock in, but on *service* lock in. Imagine a world where my identity and my social graph is truly *mine*, and is represented in a machine readable manner. Were that the case, the entrepreneurial opportunities to create second order value are immense.
Is this the goal of Open Social? I'm not sure. Danny has pointed out how Google is of two mouths when it comes to the idea.
The problem is, no one seems ready to truly set the social graph free. Till now.
With one move, Facebook can change the face (sorry) of this debate by making it falling-down easy to export your social graph. And I predict that it will.
Why? Because I think in the end, Facebook will win based on the services it provides for that data. Set the data free, and it will come back to roost wherever it's best used. And if Facebook doesn't win that race, well, it'll lose over time anyway. Such a move is entirely in line with the company's nascent philosophy, and would be a massively popular move within the ouroborosphere (my name for all things Techmeme).
Compete on service, Facebook, it's where the world is headed anyway!
- Posted by John Battelle on January 4, 2008 8:00 PM
Comments
your book the Search is great. also i am impresesed with your 2.0 interviews.
facebook is off to a great start. how they handle privacy and advertising will certainly play a key role in their future.
John - I'm glad to see we are on the same page. You are welcome to joint he DataPortbaility Workgroup if you like - just drop me a line.
Cheers,
Chris
Sure, data portability is very useful to us and we all want it. But at this point there is no competing services prompting Facebook to offer that portability. In many markets no other social network has reached that critical mass to make them a true competitor. So at this point they would be shooting themselves in the foot and daring people to seek other services by offering up that lovely feature.
I agree that they will open up eventually, but it's not going to be from pressure from Scoble and other data-toting-savvy-peeps. It will be because of pressure from comptitors, and it will probably only happen once Facebook has the unique service(s) that make people crave it nightly over all other similar sites...and that day being before most of us would think.
There is not enough people trying to climb over the walls of this garden. Not much on the other side...as of yet.
This will change soon.
the google storey and the Search i believe are key books on internet development.
Next book(s)?:
-the rise of socal networks. profile info and advertising revenue.
-platforms, applications and facebook.
-open social vs. facebook.
-cell phone internet access and china, india.
Isn't this the direction that Microsoft is going with some of their services
They are mixing Software as Service with Client synchronization in response to the Google challenge.
But the concern with some Web 2.0 sites are pageviews or return visits.
The more dependent you are on their site to access your data, the more views it will have for their necessary advertisers who are subsidizing your free or reduced-price access to these services.
Interesting thoughts on this... I can't help but liken it to the removal of DRM on music and movies. When companies learn to trust their customers, it does indeed become a more evolved relationship.
When companies act like parents, always wary of what their kids will do, and justifying rules to control them... the kids may realize they can just run away from home and live with someone else.
If Facebook is so afraid that if you let someone leave, that they will, then they need to take a serious look at what the value of their service is.
Have a great day.
-Dan
This portability thing must not be so easy to execute. New networking site Spock keeps offering to check my contacts at Gmail, LinkedIn, Plaxo, etc. but the tool never works.
I completely agree about the DRM thing. It would be wonderful if the music industry could trust us!
That's why trust is so important in business, for tips to help my customers trust me I am a frequent reader of James D. Brausch's blog!
Hi, he more dependent you are on their site to access your data, the more views it will have for their necessary advertisers who are subsidizing your free or reduced-price access to these services.
śmieszne
Post a comment