Slashdot Mirror
Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases
shadowmage13 writes "Google just announced that starting tonight, developers can start writing applications using the social API for Orkut, MySpace, Engage.com, Friendster, hi5, Hyves, imeem, LinkedIn, Ning, Oracle, Plaxo, Salesforce.com, Six Apart, Tianji, Viadeo, and XING at http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial. Will Facebook give in?" There is quite a bit of analysis of this announcement available in yesterday's discussion.
So now even Google is jumping into this whole web 2.0 thing?
...
Really? I count two, three if you include google. And "different from myspace" has been one of facebook's main attractions. This won't put any pressure on facebook.
I am trolling
Premier applications launching on the platform include "GlobalPoke", "iReallyReallyReallyLike", and the sure-to-entertain "Biggest Fucking Super Duper Wall Ever"
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
What is it with Slashdot headlines and the idea that "release" is an intransitive verb such that "X releases" means approximately the same thing as "X became available"?
"Release" is a transitive verb. The subject is the thing letting something out, the object is the thing let out. "Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases", no, sorry, if you say that, you need to say what it is that Google's OpenSocial platform releases. "Google Releases OpenSocial Platform", yes.
Sure, Google released documentation for how to write these kinds of apps, but they have yet to release any documentation for sites looking to implement the APIs. This kinda limits its proliferation. I work for a fairly large social network, and thus far we have not been able to even get started on writing an implementation OpenSocial yet.
A community-oriented lyrics site
I used to think that the MFC was a real bitch to work with when developing applications. Every MFC app I've worked with, and there have been far too many, has been a complete eyesore.
But after reviewing some of the code samples at http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/docs/javascript/index.html, I think that this is clearly a step in the wrong direction. JavaScript is good for minor effects on a website, but it just doesn't scale beyond that.
Mixing it with XML is even worse. It's just plain ugly. At least C++ offered some degree of support for structured software development. JavaScript just doesn't offer that, even the newer versions like EcmaScript4. I'm glad I became a DBA, because I sure as hell would never want to develop with this sort of inferior technology.
No.
Time and history has shown us that when you're number 1, you don't give in until you absolutely have to - because you don't need to.
That time has not yet come...
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Google is uniting these other sites because they each have something to gain from that alliance... new segments.
Facebook has nothing to gain because people from each of those segments are already on Facebook.
Facebook only has something to lose by joining that alliance... control over how their medium is dished up and the browser interstitials and advertisement revenue. My dollar is on Facebook for the long haul, unless they are shut down due to code theft (which is actually still in limbo right now, if I understand correctly).
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Myspace has twice as many accounts. Or did you mean first to have an API? Well, that's true, but they don't have years of being ahead of the game there, and on top of that, we're talking about an open API from Google. ... !
Dear Facebook,
It's Cloberin' Time!
Yours truly,
The G-Unit Commandos.
Social networking is peaking in growth, ergo it's entering a consolidation phase. Google's OpenSocial APi release is a brilliant counter-strategy (for once). FaceBook's API was a good gamble into a peaking market but I think Google has outdone them.
My prediction on FaceBook's growth rate BEFORE the Google OpenSocial API release.
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=social_networking_meme
Because I would hate to have you working in my shop..
.net, or any other server side language but please not Javascript. Yes I agree xml sucks and a database is better, but javascript is far from inferior if used the right way. Javascript is fully object based, so I don't know how can you spew such things as lacking 'structured software development'. The lightweight libraries that are out now (jquery, scriptalicious) make Javscript a piece of cake to use without even having to learn the full language. But, if you actually take the time to learn the language you actually start to become fond of it. If you learn the language properly you will notice it 'scales' just fine (though your idea of scaling might be 100000 things on 1 client side page, when in actuality the real world of 'scaling' actually involves extensive DBA serverside work like you claim you do).
Javascript has its place on the CLIENT SIDE. Comparing c++ to javascript does'nt make any sense at all. They are completely different beasts. Compare c++ to python, php, perl,
Would Microsoft be happy with this? After all they're sworn enemies of Google. Remember Microsoft has invested in Facebook, how much control/influence does it have on the company?
Australia gets screwed over again. Even New Zealand got ONE localised MySpace site and Austria got TWO!!!
Only big ligs use sigs.
It's Friday evening, and I don't have any friend, real or virtual. So I actually watched that retarded video. (highly recommended for a good laugh)
All it is supposed to be, is so that you can write some stupid client side gadget, and you gadget can be run on every participating websites. BFD.
Each site is still an isolated island. You gadget doesn't run across sites, it only runs on every sites. It is not for sharing anything or interacting with anybody among different sites.
I've assumed that OpenSocial is about connecting users on different sites, probably most people did too, just from the misleading name and the hypes. But there's nothing open or social about it.
One might argue that eventually Google will do that. I highly doubt it. What's in it for Google? All I am seeing at this point, is that they want to label FaceBook as a party pooper therefore it should be outcasted. How social is that.
Will the Web 2.0 bubble burst be semantic? I'm sure AJAX will be involved somehow...
MySpace may be the #1 website by traffic, but not by money-making eyeballs. MySpace's largest demographic is tweens and younger. Facebook's is High School to College and older. Guess which demographic spends more money?
As in now? 10:25 PM EST? Hmm, I wonder what the ratio of developers hurridly, and excitedly to start coding is to those that are actually having a friday nightlife?
P.S. Why do you guys use an mp3 to read the antibot word? I thought ogg would be the way to go..
I actually did check that link out.
:-(
Its worse than goatce!
You can access both public and private feeds using the OpenSocial People data API. Public feeds don't require any authentication, but they are read-only. If you want to view Friends then your client needs to authenticate before requesting private feeds. It can authenticate using either of two approaches: ClientLogin username/password authentication or AuthSub proxy authentication.
How could I authenticate myself into other social websites like Friendster then?
Authentication is one of the most important aspect to make OpenSocial open, I think.
in the same api/environment ? oh bugger off !!!
any api/environment that has myspace in it caters to, well, myspace crowd ( good lord there is no other way to put it). i wouldnt think any average user of facebook would like to ( god forbid) mingle with myspacers in an environment, regardless of the api.
Read radical news here
While I'm sure that there are some people that like to have their networking links travel from place to place, I think this is a feature that is really designed to benefit on-line marketers more than end users. Developers that write for these APIs, are really sort of fools, because ultimately, they are giving away to Google and others information that they should really actually -pay for-. If I were lucky enough to put some social site together with millions of hits, the last thing I'd want to would be to give away all of my behavior information to Google. If they want it, then they can write me a fricking check.
MY CUSTOMERS! MINE, MINE, MINE!
This is my sig.
With so much brouhaha about social networking, Web 2.0, networking analytics, etc. that the internet is spewing, I wonder where this is all leading to from a corporate intranet perspective. Am sure even if the CIO (or which ever CXO is responsible for IT & security) is not ready to open up these sites in his/her corporate network (by putting up site blockers, etc.), employees will find out a way to bring them in. So is it not prudent for the CIO to include social networking in the IT strategy of the organization?
OTOH, for the sales & marketing managers this could be a god send. It would be even very helpful for the product managers. These social networking mechanisms connect the customers directly with the product managers as shown by the GM, Lenovo, etc. blogs which led to the development of new products based on the direct inputs from customers to the product managers! Youtube kind of sites offering a very easy means of creating effective viral marketing.
The traditional CRM strategies that help the marketing, sales & service people need to be upgraded to include social networking. This indeed is happening with lots of talks about CRM 2.0! *not again* All that CRM 2.0 says is to enable customers to connect directly with the business in a much more integrated manner.
With the raise of open source business apps like compiere, openbravo & especially since SugarCRM getting GPLed, CRM & ERP systems have suddenly gotten within the reach of numerous SMBs who hitherto could not afford to splurge millions on systems like SAP or Siebel.
Now Google's OpenSocial being supported by SugarCRM from its launch puts a lot of pressure on the traditional CRM approach as well as vendors.
All that remains now is to come out with an architecture for integrating social computing apps with the traditional enterprise applications.
-- Prem
Aiming to tweet on a rice
Not until MySpace solves their spam problem.
Anyone wrapped these api's in a convenient-to-print PDF file?
No, do NOT thank him for the link. Moreover, unless you're into fecaleating, I recommend you do not click on it or at the very least do not watch past the first 2-3 seconds. It look good to start... but I really must remember *not* to click on links from slashdot posts.
I first heard about this yesterday, and went "Oh cool, so Google's finally implementing OpenID. Maybe they'll do for that what they did for Jabber."
You see, Google Talk is a Jabber IM service. That means that while the Google Talk client itself probably only works with Google, you can, in fact, talk to anyone, on any domain, on any Jabber server, from your Google Talk account, and vice versa. It's IM, but with the decentralization, flexibility, and possibility of competition that you find in email.
Well, OpenID is like that, but for authentication and profiles. I can sign up for an OpenID anywhere, and it will work anywhere that supports OpenID. It means that any site that would otherwise require free registration can simply require an OpenID. It's like single sign on, but your authentication server can be anywhere, and can be tied to an account... and you can use any authentication method, really. Most people would use usernames/passwords, I'd probably use a PGP key or something.
Anyway...
It's not OpenID.
That's fine, the OpenID "standards" are a mess, but...
It's not even a replacement for OpenID. If anything, it's a replacement for Passport, but you have a Google account instead of an MSN account. Ok, yes, I can access my social networking data from any random website, as part of a web app -- but what if I don't want to be on Orkut?
In other words...
Why have they replaced a few tiny walled gardens (MySpace, Facebook) with a gated community? Why not just open it up, especially if you're going to pretend it's "open"?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The point of this exercise isn't audience size. No other social networking site has the API buzz that Facebook has created, nor the number of deployed applications.
So the answer "no", Facebook won't give in. Maybe when they start losing market share, but not now. Actually, this looks more like an act of desperation from the other social networking sites to catch up. When competitors join up against a common foe, it says a lot about the strength of that foe.
-- .
Mozilla is the TV inside your computer; a dummy program with Back-Forward-Follow buttons that feeds you all kinds of disturbing, irrelevant information.
There are certain businesses that have very strong interests in this model and who profit by disturbing the user with ads.
Those businesses want you to use only the "Mozilla TV" program which defaults to this behavior. In order to achieve that, they make the content distributed in such complex/undocumented protocols that no other program can display it (well, IE too). And when other browsers get close, they present new versions of the protocols (javascript 3, CSS 3, HTML 5), which they write, approve, implement in "Mozilla TV".
This is "Web 2.0"
Content can be viewed only by certain programs which are controlled by the ads-business.
The other part of the deal is making websites switch to Web 2.0
smells like web3.0 is looming in the air.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch