Slashdot Mirror


Redmond's Heavy Guns Go After OpenSocial

jg21 writes "It is probably coincidental, but two responses to OpenSocial from well-respected members of the Microsoft blogging community have each in their own way come out against Google's OpenSocial initiative, Dare Osabanjo because in his view OpenSocial while billed as a standardized widget platform for the Web, actually isn't. And Don Dodge because his claim is that fifty million Facebook developers "don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care.""

44 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Big guns, eh? Bah. by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guns ablazin', I'm SURE they could take on the entire Google fanbase.

    1. Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. by dynamo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft does not know what an open standard IS, though they keep claiming to.

      Hell, they don't really even know what a standard is.

    2. Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. by orclevegam · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell, they don't really even know what a standard is.

      Sure they do, that's that thing they keep changing every time they release a new version of Office.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  2. Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Shocking! Shocking I say!

    What is wrong with the world, this day in age, when a company's employees will come out and bash the competitors competing products?
    </sarcasm>

    This is about as surprising as Ballmer bashing Apple, Apple bashing MS or Google, [insert any other corporate rivalry here]. News it ain't.

    Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    1. Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's even funnier than that! It's Microsoft employees bewailing the notion that people don't follow standards!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just wait! Tomorrow Ballmer will announce the 'OpenChair' API!

    3. Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? by Misch · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought it was going to be the next MS hardware venture - the Chairapult

      No, it's the Trebuchaise.

      --

      --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
  3. What social networks are really about... by TofuMatt · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree. Who the fuck cares about APIs? It's not like people are joining Facebook just to add fifty million stupid applications to their profile.

    --
    -Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
    I have a website
    1. Re:What social networks are really about... by monkeyboythom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I don't care that you don't care. In addition, the Facebook crowd does not care either. But I do, because less developer competition is a bonus for me.

      However, the Facebook crowd will care when they see a nifty new plug-in or tool that allows them to have a social calendar robot(tm) or ad hoc open forum(tm) or anything else that will make their Facebook experience more pleasant, more useful, or just plain old stupid but with really interesting eye candy.

      And by then, you'll care because you don't want to be left out of the "cool crowd."

    2. Re:What social networks are really about... by clonmult · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, you're absolutely right - its not fifty million stupid applications, its closer to 20 million.

      And at least 99.999% of them suck.

    3. Re:What social networks are really about... by kebes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Clearly what we need is a Facebook group for "Get Facebook to support OpenSocial!"

      As we all know, when Facebook groups become big enough, they can move mountains... :)

    4. Re:What social networks are really about... by damaki · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am a vampire/wereworlf/FilthBook user on Facebook and without APIs, I'd starve/sing/mast****** to death, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Stupidity is the root of all evil.
    5. Re:What social networks are really about... by rizzo420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      so a global group search on facebook and you'll see that there are 16 groups with "OpenSocial" in their name. they're all currently growing in size.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    6. Re:What social networks are really about... by acidrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the Facebook crowd will care when they see a nifty new plug-in

      Many Facebook users are really sick of the apps on Facebook. I get 5 content-free messages every day that would require me to install some juvenile piece of shit just to confirm that I didn't care about it's content, and I'm thinking the mountain of stupid apps could be the death of Facebook. Considering Facebook's initial popularity was based on not being as stupid as Myspace.

      Perhaps Google is late to the party on this one. We already have "app fatigue."

      --
      -- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
  4. fifty million Facebook developers by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    fifty million Facebook developers "don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care."

    Well yeah, if you're going to base the usefulness of something on how many Facebook developers know about it, pretty much nothing is useful.
    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:fifty million Facebook developers by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well yeah, if you're going to base the usefulness of something on how many Facebook developers know about it, pretty much nothing is useful. Yeah, that was a pretty retarded statement. Like saying that Linux is useless because Windows developers aren't interested in it. And 50 million? Uh, right...
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:fifty million Facebook developers by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry, but in order for a social networking application to be useful, [i]lots of people have to be interested in it[/i]


      (1) OpenSocial isn't an application, its a set of technologies on which applications are built;
      (2) Actually, you need lots of people involved in the social network, which serves as the "database" of the social networking application. They don't have to use the particular application, much less be interested in the particular set of APIs on which the application is built; and
      (3) Lots of people can be not interested in something (the supposed 50 million Facebook "developers") and still have lots of other people interested in it. "Lots of people aren't interested in X" does not imply the falsity of "lots of people are interested in X".

      You don't need a social networking application to connect to your friends whom you sit around with in the basement playing D&D.


      Certainly not while you are doing that; outside of that time, social networking functionality would be useful to just that kind of group, too.

      You're not going to reconnect with old friends (which is what I use Facebook for) if none of your old friends use it.


      So? What does that have to do with OpenSocial APIs? Your friends don't have to use the OpenSocial APIs, or even applications built with them, for them to be part of the network you access if you use them. You seem to be confusing social networks with social networking applications and with social networking technologies and confusing developers with users.
    3. Re:fifty million Facebook developers by jamesl · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's "fifty million Facebook users ... " not developers.

  5. Facebook Developers by onion2k · · Score: 5, Funny

    There aren't 50 million Facebook developers. It only seems that way because there's 50 million 'really awesome super dooper wall' applications.

    1. Re:Facebook Developers by cradle · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you follow the link, you'll see that what he really said was "There are 50 million Facebook users who don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care." [emphasis mine]

    2. Re:Facebook Developers by mgblst · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think that we should judge all our projects by this huge knowledge base, for if 50 million facebook uses don't know what something is, then it is a complete waste of time.

  6. Well respected? by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 5, Funny

    well-respected members of the Microsoft blogging community Oxymoron?
    1. Re:Well respected? by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

      well-respected members of the Microsoft blogging community

        Oxymoron?


      Where did you get "oxy" from? ;)
  7. New Redmond Ploy by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might be just me, but there seems to be an awful lot of blog posts coming from Redmond employees these days based on the new tactic of "If we get enough people banging on our blogs and rubbishing it enough, and then claim that we're the victims in all of this when someone raises a valid point, maybe people will believe that it's true!"

  8. Users != Developers by downix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook does not have 50 million developers. It has 50 million users. Active developers are an incredibly small minority within that community.

    Or are you saying that Miss take-a-self-portrait-at-arms-length-on-her-cell-phone is a developer because she knows how to post a picture as her background?

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Users != Developers by kebes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed, and the differentiation between users and developers is critical in this case. Basically, most users don't care about APIs and open standards and such (until, of course, the day they try to migrate all their perfectly tagged photos from one site to another... and discover they can't).

      The developers are the ones who might care about APIs and open standards. Now, I'll admit that some casual developers of Facebook widgets don't care too much about portability and open standards. But, I would guess that many (most?) developers of social widgets do care about such things. As a developer, why would you want your work to be coupled to a single site, which is not under your control? Most programmers would prefer to have the ability to move their code from place to place, and for their widgets/applications to be accessible to as many people as possible (otherwise, why are they releasing it in the first place?).

      So whereas users might not care about these things, I think many programmers/developers are going to be more interested in working on OpenSocial tools and widgets, rather than contributing to a walled garden that they have no control over. (E.g. Facebook can come up with a tightly-coupled widget that completely replaces your pet project.)

      If the developers care, they could certainly shift the balance of power towards OpenSocial. Users may not care about APIs and open standards, but they certainly do care about awesome widgets, the ability to link with a large and growing social network, and (perhaps most importantly) the ability to migrate their current profile into this new network. If everyone except Facebook (for instance) is part of this OpenSocial network, then Facebook users will indeed be annoyed that they cannot interact with the cool toys everyone else is playing with.

  9. Wow by insllvn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Dare Osabanjo because in his view OpenSocial while billed as a standardized widget platform for the Web, actually isn't." Did Microsoft really just criticize Google for creating a non-standardized standard? What?

  10. Re:Fifty million DEVELOPERS? by Eivind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No they don't. They have 50 million -accounts- which completely fails to be the same thing.

    Some of these are held by people who have two or more accounts. Some are held by spammers, and a great many are held by people who at some point or other signed up out of curisoity, but haven't actually used the site even once the last month. These aren't "users" of the service.

  11. Re:Json again by orclevegam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure what exactly your point with this is, but I'd like to contribute some interesting facts. First, JSON isn't a Google thing. In fact, it was created by a Yahoo employee (Douglas Crockford), and is an open standard which is available as RFC4627. Having worked with JSON in the past, it's a much simpler, and much lighter markup language than XML (yes, that's right, it's a markup language, nothing more, just like XML, and HTML). I'm not certain how google is using JSON in their API, but in my experience deciding to use JSON over XML is probably a smart idea, as JSON is much more compact, and much easier to write (a lot less typing) and can easily represent all the standard data constructs available in almost any language.

    If you want to bash the design of Googles API versus Yahoos that's fine, but please don't confuse the issue by saying JSON is somehow more complicated than XML, as that couldn't be farther from the truth.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  12. MS talks, Google walks by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure MS employees are going to take shots at Google services. But even if they're not perfect, Google is getting the services out there and putting the tools out there. While MS blogs about it. I'm sure MS will eventually field some Windows-centric competitive product...just as soon as they get done blogging about how bad Google is.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:MS talks, Google walks by arkane1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And to go along with their usual naming convention they'll call it "Microsoft Social Network"... wait til it's an abysmal failure then rename it to "Microsoft Live Friends & Family" and integrate it into the Windows profile somehow.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  13. OpenSocial Hacked already by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  14. "Open" by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's even funnier than that! It's Microsoft employees bewailing the notion that people don't follow standards!


    Its not about not following standards, its about not submitting work to standards body, and specifically, about not being "open" because the technology isn't submitted to a standards body. Osanbanjo writes:

    There are all sorts of forums for proposing and discussing open Web technologies including the IETF, W3C, OASIS and even ECMA. Until all of the underlying technologies in OpenSocial have been handed over to one or more of these standards bodies, this is a case of the proprietary pot calling the proprietary kettle black.


    Yeah, its the new Microsoft definition of "open": "open" means "submitted to a standards body".
  15. Is it now assumed Microsoft = Facebook? by mikemuch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I haven't seen the comment made anywhere that perhaps the real motivation for the bit OpenSocial announcement could be that Google lost the bidding war for a stake in Facebook. This could explain MS's lack of interest in creating a cross-SN API, though I can't picture them doing that anyway, except maybe as an option in their dev tools.

  16. plogs, not blogs by paiute · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When someone is paid to sit at work and comment on their web log about the competition, it is no longer a 'blog but a paid web log, or 'plog.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  17. Re:I'll play devil's advocate... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

    OpenSocial will be nothing more than a Google version of Facebook, and I'm not sure I want that, or that any significant amount of people will switch over.


    OpenSocial isn't a social networking website. If Google had a version of Facebook, I would guess it would be Orkut, which is Google's social networking website. But OpenSocial is a set of technologies that several social networking websites -- including MySpace, which has more users than Facebook -- are committed to supporting.
  18. Did people actually read the articles? by gaindev · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Did a few people actually read the articles before they commented? I think the two articles raised a few interesting points.



    The one from Don Dodge pointed out the most important fact that Facebook's success is based on its users' loyalty to the service. Do they really care about applications? Most of them dont care that much. If one developer leaves, there will be plenty of others who will do same thing, even better.



    The second article looks at OpenSocial from technical perspective. It compared the two set of APIs to see whether facebook's or opensocial is better technically. OpenSocial should be seen as FREE APIs rather than "open" (which generally regarded as good, no evil) APIs. These APIs are owned and administered by Google, which they can withdraw anytime they want as with Google Map APIs.



    Having said that, it's still interesting to watch the battle bw facebook and "the new microsoft" :D

  19. Re:OpenSocial = Google freaking out by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All of this for a stupid social networking site.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Stamping feet, and shaking fists... on both sides? by aeroseth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, is jg21 taking a jab at Dare Obasanjo by calling him Dare Osabanjo? Maybe it was just a typo, but I digress.
    Dare seems to present his thoughts in a well written manner and doesn't seem to be ranting, so I dismiss jg21's one liner to describe Dare's article as a cheap shot. I'm no fan of Microsoft but if Google can learn from Microsoft's developers (hint, hint, free secrets about Microsoft's strategy) to make Google's API better then why not. However Don Dodge's comments are exactly the kind of "Na-na-na, naa-naa-naaaa", "in your face" kind of bullet-point ranting I'd expect from a Microsoft developer.

    In any case this topic is sure to get more press here then it's worth, even my time spent commenting on it seems to be a total waste now that I think about it.

    Seth

    --
    "Is that real poncho or a Sears poncho?" ~~FZ
  21. Sys-con hosting more FUD: remembering the past by merc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Consider the source folks, this is the same online rag that hosts Maureen O'Gara articles. For those that aren't familiar with "MoG" she a SCO shill with an extreme anti-IBM bias that stalked Groklaw's PJ, posted her personal information and other sorts of gossipy crap which SYS-CON happily published. MoG is also the last holdout that believes the SCO lies (and who is, coincidentally, owed money by SCO as is shown in the bankruptcy debtors list).

    At one time SYS-CON promised to get rid of MOG, right after a mass exodus by SYS-CON writers in protest over what was called a gross violation of professional ethics. Later in an interview for Free Software Magazine, Fuat Kircaali, CEO of Sys-Con, stated he felt Maureen did nothing wrong. Today they still let her secretly write pro-SCO rubbish, and in some cases outright incorrect information under a pen name.

    Anyone who consideres SYS-CON an authoritive source of IT information would be better off reading eweek or TheOnion for that matter. Sys-Con has some sort of agenda and are (at least in my opinion) serving interests other than Free or Open source software.

    --
    It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
  22. Re:Json again by orclevegam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You mean like AJAX and the multiple frameworks that aren't owned by anyone is?

    Yes, but you're still missing the point. It needs to be designed from the beginning for developing network based applications. That means it needs real graphics and animation capabilities. Sure you can kludge it in JavaScript and HTML by using 1 pixel by 1 pixel colored divs, but that's really really slow and terribly wasteful, not to mention a real pain in the butt to program. It would also be nice if it could integrate into the native OS to a certain extent (tray icons, in OS X have the menu across the top of the screen, etc.). But most importantly it needs to be lightweight. Most if not all the data (barring graphics) should be in some sort of text format like HTML and CSS, not binary blobs like class files. It also needs to put a lot of thought into security issues. For an example of something that I think is very close, but fails at least the proprietary test, check out Adobe AIR.

    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  23. Re:OpenSocial = Google freaking out by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm so glad Microsoft and Google are responsible corporate entities, and not fueling a new feeding frenzy of irrational investment. It's not like the sub-prime collapse has done any collateral damage to the economy, so heap on more bizarre, nonsensical investment strategies.

    It's soooo much like the 1990s that I saw mention of "Web 3.0" a few days ago, as if the comical fluff that is Web 2.0 wasn't bad enough. I think it's time I get on the bandwagon. Know of many brain dead venture capitalists out there willing to give me a few million. If I can beat the bubble's burst, I should be able to pocket a lot of money, live in Hawaii and laugh my ass off at the idiots out there.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  24. Re:OpenSocial = Google freaking out by entropiccanuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NY Times had an article "In India, Poverty Inspires Technology Workers to Altruism" that discussed how social networking sites had huge economic potential for the impoverished in India. I don't have much use for myspace, but social networking via the internet could have profound impact.

  25. How about reading the API? by Kristoph · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, you know, before bagging out this person for being a Microsoft shill (which he may be, I don't know) did any poster bother reading the OpenSocial API spec? Because I did, in fact, read it and I have to say, its really very bad. I mean, it reads like some marketroids gathered up some stuff Orkut is doing into a binder (which itself did not have much forethought), did a deal with some partners, and threw it out there with the word 'Open' in the title for the GOOG fanboys.

    I am usually a fan of GOOG API's but this is pure competitive play that is weak technically and has little or no merit beyond who is supporting it.

    ]{