Yesterday John McCrea posted on TechcrunchIT about his experience when attending the User Experience Summit for OpenID. Apparently a large portion of the event turned into a conversation about Facebook’s experience with developing Connect. One takeaway was that Facebook Connect is much further along then OpenID and any of the platforms providing a single login.

While OpenID is pretty well defined, all implementations of the service have been overly complex, in turn confusing users. On the other hand, Facebook Connect is extremely simple and intuitive for users. If you take a look at many of the open standards and the services that have been developed on them, it is a rare occasion when you see well designed implementation.

All too often we see implementations of new services, such as Google Friend Connect, but the service just doesn’t look good. Why on earth would someone want to integrate a service which looks like crap? They wouldn’t! If the open source alliance which is trying to develop better standards than Facebook can’t develop better looking services they are going to have some serious problems.

If they were to make Google Friend Connect look extremely clean, I think it could have a really good chance of succeeding. For the time being Facebook Connect has the best implementation and it would be great if other standards followed Facebook’s lead when it comes to building clean user interfaces. Have you seen any solid implementations of Google Friend Connect or MySpace Data Availability?

This afternoon I had the fortune of attending the Media Future Now event held at Verizon’s offices in downtown Washington, D.C. Much of the early conversation revolved around topics related to media, advertising, and the impact of the economy. There were also some great stories from David Almacy who was the White House Internet and E-Communications Director from 2005 to 2007.

While I’d love to talk about the impact of social media on government and politics, what really struck a chord with me was the demo of FIOS following the panel. It was simply a relatively basic overview of how FIOS compares to existing services. The bottom line is that FIOS is fast. The implications of having access to such high speed internet on a residential basis is transformative in itself.

Imagine running a video-based media company out of your basement. While there are currently ways to do that, it’s not on the level that extremely high speed internet can provide. There are some significant hurdles facing FIOS adoption though and Verizon is taking a serious risk by investing so heavily in FIOS. We also discussed rough capital expenditure numbers and it sounded as though they are spending somewhere in the ballpark of 20 percent of their annual capital expenditure on FIOS deployment.

Regardless of the financials and the implications of very high speed internet access, what stuck most with me was the implications of FIOS as a platform.

The First Platforms

Early on there were only a few platforms for distributing and running software. You would go out to the store and buy software which ran on your operating system. Windows and Macintosh were the largest players and while there were plenty of alternative platforms (OS2, etc), these two became the dominant forces when it came to the world of operating systems (the primary platforms at the time).

As Steve Ballmer stated, “Developers, Developers, Developers” were the most critical variable for success. The more developers you had, the better. Much of this still rings true but slowly we are witnessing the disintegration of platforms from the software and a distribution of software across multiple platforms. As far as I’m concerned, personal computers were the first digital platforms.

Television As a Platform

When Facebook released their platform over a year ago, developers flocked to the site as they had the opportunity to attract the millions of users on the site. At the time, the number of users was somewhere around 25 to 30 million users. Since then the site has grown to over 110 million users (more than impressive considering this was less than a year and a half ago).

What if Comcast suddenly brought together all the tech bloggers to announce that all Comcast digital cable would soon become an open platform for developers to build on? That would be a pretty big deal considering they had 16.3 million digital subscribers as of June this year. While it’s not as fast growing as Facebook it is clearly a substantial number of users and when considering the reach of the iPhone, cable television is clearly another distribution channel for developers.

Well for those looking to distribute their digital products via the television, you will soon be able to on FIOS as they are also opening up their system.

The Digital World is All Platforms

When it comes to the digital economy, it is still about digital goods and services. These goods and services (or “digital products” as I’ll call them from now on) can be paid for or can be advertising supported. Digital products need a platform for delivery. Those platforms range from the internet browser, to a computer operating system, to a mobile device, video game console, DVRs, advanced remote controls, etc.

The Rise of Platform-Independent Applications
What is significant about the past few years is the shift from platform dependent developers to platform independent developers. For many years you couldn’t run Microsoft software on Macintosh and vice-versa. Ultimately, you still can’t but Microsoft and Apple have adapted and have built software custom to each operating system.

There will always be rules from one platform to another just as there are rules from one shopping mall to another. The main difference is that we are starting to see the rise in platform independent developers. LivingSocial is the prime example for a platform independent company. The company started with social recommendations on Facebook and has now ported those applications to MySpace, Bebo, hi5, and other OpenSocial compatible sites.

Then last night the company released the LivingSocial iPhone application. This is a new type of development company. They build digital products which are accessible across any platform as long as users are there. If Comcast decides to launch a platform I can just about guarantee that LivingSocial and companies like them will rush toward the opportunity to build applications for Comcast.

It’s simply another channel for distributing their digital products. One other thing that I should have included as a platform for LivingSocial: the internet. Yes they are on social networks which reside on the internet, but they also have a destination site which is part of the broader internet. Google by the way is rapidly becoming the single point of navigation for the general internet.

Back to the point though! If I’m a shoemaker, I’m going to take the opportunity to sell my shoes in as many places as possible, as long as it’s feasible for my business to do so. As the barriers to develop across platforms diminish, we are witnessing the growth of platform independent development.

Still Extremely Early

While we are currently embedded in what I consider a platform revolution, there are so many variables present that it is practically impossible to comprehend what the future holds. What I do know though is that there is a movement toward platform independence and movements like “Data Portability” are a significant part of this movement.

The new standards being developed like OpenSocial each provide applications with their own containers for distributing their digital products anywhere on the web. Soon enough though, these standards could move across platforms and devices. Google Android is an example of a platform which will be device independent and anybody developing for the iPhone platform or the Android platform will have to develop separate code.

Unfortunately, a future in which there is complete platform independence (write once, run anywhere) is like like the existence of a utopian society: I can’t see it happening. There are great movements though that are in the right direction and while we may never get there, the removal of barriers is helping to create a new environment.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

So after that long technical rambling about the dynamic between platforms and digital products that are distributed on them, I’d like to take a shot at explaining what this means for companies looking to find their way in this complex environment. As I’ve posted in my series on the social web economy, there are only a few types of companies all of which are focused for one single purpose: the distribution & sale of products.

Whether it’s advertising companies, analytics services, agencies (which assist with branding, marketing, and promoting promoting the products), media companies, product companies, or the platforms themselves the goal has always been the same. The goal is to build products and distribute them to as many people as possible.

There are two types of product companies: physical/in-person product companies (which provide physical goods and services) or digital product companies (which provide digital goods or services). Physical product companies use the platforms and products on the web to reach their consumers. In other words, it’s for advertising. Nothing else.

For digital product companies, as I said previously, you are either selling your product or advertising on it (there of course is the hybrid model but I’ll ignore that for simplicity). These companies must focus on distributing the product to all places no matter what their business model is.

While I could go in depth as to what model works best for each type of company, the most important thing is building your reach through the available distribution channels. The key is not just reach though, for brands the key is relevance. You may have you advertisement displayed to millions of people but are those the right people for your product or service? Relevance is what matters.

Conclusion

After my long rambling on platforms and the implications for businesses, I hope that there was at least a few valuable takeaway points. I believe that we are in the midst of a huge shift toward open platforms which cater to platform-independent developers. As this shift continues we will see the emergence of ubiquitous digital products which provide cross-platform accessibility (enough buzz words for you?).

In essence, the digital world is a group of platforms and it is our job to figure out what platforms make the most sense for our products and focus on obtaining maximum reach through leveraging those platforms.

Over the weekend, there was a lot of buzz about Britney Spears launching her own Twitter account. The initial discussion surrounded what this meant for Twitter, as it now appeared to be moving more mainstream. Britney’s presence on Twitter also coincides with the launch of her new song “Womanizer” (which I’ve embedded below).

The second discussion about Britney’s presence on Twitter was that it wasn’t personal. Gary Vaynerchuk highlighted this in a pretty entertaining video. As many people noticed, the tweets being posted to Britney’s accounts were being run by her team and not by Britney. At least Britney’s team acknowledged Gary’s request to be more personal earlier this morning.

The Varying Twitter Accounts

People use Twitter for different purposes. The most obvious is for expressing personal thoughts and then communicating with others. Some users (like myself), mix personal and promotional purposes with Twitter. I for instance post my blog posts and then post personal thoughts and write about the activities that I’m up to.

Comcast, which is probably the best brand example on Twitter, has Frank Eliason who manages the Comcast cares account. Frank monitors all instances of people tweeting about Comcast and gets directly in touch with them. A small group of accounts are actively managed by other people. For instance Barack Obama does not personally update his Twitter account.

Instead, Obama has a team which regularly updates Twitter with Obama’s activities. That doesn’t stop Obama from being the largest user by a huge margin. Barack Obama has over 100,000 followers.

What is the Right Way to Use Twitter?

This all brings me back to my original question which is: what’s the best way for brands to leverage Twitter? Gary Vaynerchuk believes that brands must provide a personal voice and a face if they are going to succeed. NPR News has one of the top 100 Twitter accounts though and they provide nothing personal, only news. There are 18 brands that function like NPR in the top 100 accounts.

The other 82 are all individuals. Does this mean that one should use Twitter as an individual then? I’m not quite sure to be honest. I think that based on the accounts I’ve looked at, you have to choose from the onset whether or not you want to be personal, or act as a brand. If your account is as a brand, don’t expect to have the same type of personal connection which helps small businesses grow.

Large brands can go off their brand name but small brands are forced to be more personal. What do you think is proper etiquette for brands? Do you prefer the personal route or the branded route? Is there anything in between?

As an internet entrepreneur one of the most significant fears you can have is that Google will begin offering a competing product or service for free. Both small and large companies fear the day Google will launch a competing free product. Just ask Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer his thoughts on Google Docs, I’m sure he won’t be enthusiastic about it.

If you are an executive at a mobile social network compny, any new service rolled out by Facebook and MySpace would most likely have the same effect. There is a large group of competing social networks that have built sizable audiences including Mocospace, MyGamma, Peperonity, Itsmy, and a few others. The biggest challenge facing those networks? I would suggest Facebook and MySpace are the largest challenges.

According to a study released yesterday, out of all users of mobile social networks “nearly 70% have visited MySpace and another 67% had visited Facebook. No other social networking site reached 15% adoption mobile adoption.” This is substantial and it appears that Facebook and MySpace are simply blowing by the competition in a short period of time.

According to the research, the most popular activities on mobile devices is checking messages and comments followed by posting status updates. This also goes to show how Facebook and MySpace are rapidly substituting many of the features provided by Twitter, a company which has yet to find a sufficient business model.

One of the core takeaways from the study is that mobile social networks, and not email, are becoming the central hub for communication for those connecting on mobile devices. This has huge implications for the future of social networks as it suggests that the social networks are becoming a more integral component of users’ every day communication.

I for one receive business communications via Facebook on a regular basis. While the average users may not have hit that point, the trend is in that direction. The only remaining question is not whether users will continue to adopt social networks on their mobile devices, but what social networks they will use over the next 12 to 24 months.

I would suggest that we will continue to see a shift that significantly favors Facebook and MySpace. Given that the data in this study is from the second quarter, new data will most likely suggest a continuation of this shift. Do you think competing mobile social networks have a chance? If so, where are the largest opportunities?

While you could argue that blogging in general has crossed into mainstream based on the number of visitors attending top blogs, most visitors don’t know that what they are visiting is called “blogs” though. After speaking with one individual last night, I’ve concluded that some people will just never get involved in social media or take advantage of the many tools at their disposal.

The Inner Circle

I’ve realized that much of social media is really an inner circle. A large portion of these readers participate in the conversation on Twitter, Friendfeed, and other platforms are part of a relatively small yet influential circle. While that circle continues to expand, I’ve begun to wonder if the majority of individuals will ever become highly active in social media outside of Facebook and mainstream social networks.

When Charlene Li wrote the book “Groundswell” she highlighted Forrester’s social technographics profile and the various categories. The six types of categories are creators, critics, collectors, joiners, spectators, and inactives. The “joiners” do nothing more than participate in social networks for the most part. The spectators and inactives do even less. A whopping 44 percent are inactives.

I rarely think about how disconnected from reality I am but after talking with one person last night I definitely realized it. There’s a group of people that require an alternative form of communication to have what is ultimately “inside conversation”. This morning I concluded that much of this conversation amounts to what is secret code among fraternities.

The average person doesn’t understand what one is talking about (for instance when referencing “Twitter”), but the few active social media active participants are the only one that knows what’s being discussed. When the conversation is outside of the mainstream, is there any way for the conversation to eventually become mainstream?

When Tim O’Reilly first defined Web 2.0 it helped define an emerging industry surrounding new web technologies following the bust of the internet bubble. Yesterday afternoon I read a post about Tim O’Reilly course correcting the definition. The definition was ultimately being expanded to include Google as part of Web 2.0. I found it somewhat entertaining as ultimately Web 2.0 is really nothing more then the internet.

While we can place terms for the evolution of how human’s leverage the power of the technologies provided by the web, ultimately the web continues to evolve and no matter what application are built to harness the power of it, it is still simply the internet. Humans simply weren’t used to what is ultimately a “many to many” communication platform instead of one to one as most communication was prior to the web.

To be honest, I even have used the term “social web” as though there is a subset of the web focused on communication and technologies which help improve our ability to socialize (or “communicate”). The entire web is about communication though and ultimately we are simply integrating the tools that leverage the power of the web to more effectively communicate.

As such any terms which attempt to define anything outside of digital transactions (including “Web 2.0″, the “social web”, etc) is simply placing a term for what is ultimately humans striving to leverage the web to communicate more efficiently. I guess defining terms is a way for us to create a sense of place and time and make us feel like we are progressing.

Let’s stop making “Web 2.0″ products though. What we really need to build is great products and tools that help us communicate more effectively. That’s it.

Over the past two years I have spent countless hours traveling to conferences around the world to meet some of the most influential people on the internet today. As I traveled from one conference to the next I have found that there appeared to be an excessive number of events covering social media, social technology, and Web 2.0. I’ve participated in some of those conference and many of them were amazing productions but there has definitely been froth in the market.

Warning Signs Beginning to Emerge

The first warning sign that I saw was the shut down of DigitalLife Expo by Ziff Davis media. While I honestly can’t say that I heard about the event previously, it was a sign that perhaps bad things were to come. Yesterday while walking around a local conference I heard that the Social Media Marketing Summit being held by mthink was having trouble selling tickets.

These are only a few of the events that are in the process of disappearing. How many times can people possibly listen to the same speakers talk about the same topic? Ultimately this is a question that can’t be answered but it’s my inclination that there are most definitely some events being put on by individuals that don’t even have expertise within the industries they are promoting.

The Integration of Media & Events

It’s not over though. The real value is generated by the integration of online media and offline events. The business model for modern media companies is through event promotion. Just like the music industry is generating a large portion (if not the majority) of their cash flow through concerts, new media companies are succeeding by promoting conferences.

Last night I saw a post on the Facebook blog about the Future of Web Apps in London and realized just how nice it can be to be in the circle of influencers. For those events that don’t have event directors with the industry leaders on speed dial, it can be much more challenging to build a successful event. That’s why those companies need to rely on building media companies.

Unfortunately I see it time and time again that some random individual pulls in a few good speakers which snowballs into a decent lineup for an event and suddenly is able to sell-out to a packed crowd. I was fortunate enough to fill-up the Social Ad Summit a few weeks ago with great speakers and great attendees but I believe it was my reliance on creating content which drove the success of that event.

Content is still King and the same holds for the content within conferences. If you have the ability to consistently produce quality content, you are good to go. Unfortunately you can’t always hit the ball out of the park with conferences and that’s why generating other media to back up those events is so important.

This Economy Will Eliminate the Froth

Honestly, if there is one good thing to come of this downturn in the economy, it’s that the froth will be eliminated. You can’t run successful businesses without delivering high-quality service to your customers the majority of the time. Those that were able to pull revenue thanks to an environment with more excessive spending are going to face tough times ahead. You need to either be a thought leader, have a large reach (through your media), or have the best roledex (or any combination of these) to succeed in this environment.

There has been tons of events covering the exact same topics in the same geographic regions which has made for an extremely challenging environment. Do you agree that there has been somewhat of a conference bubble in this space?

Despite the collapse of Wall Street and what I previously considered a tech conference bubble, one person that continues to build value is Loic LeMeur. Yesterday he was announced as one of the most influential people on the web.

Last week I had the pleasure to sit through Fred Wilson’s keynote at Web 2.0 Expo in NYC. While the history given by Fred is not comprehensive, it does provide great insight as to how New York has grown to become one of the fastest growing (if not the fastest growing) web industries in the U.S. There were a few key components listed in Fred’s keynote which I think is important for any other bubbling center for web and entrepreneurship.

First, Fred references the launch of the Interactive Telecommunications Program at NYU back in 1979. Today, in D.C. there is not a single program in the area that I know of that has been able to duplicate what the ITP has accomplished. While many reference the University of Maryland and their Dingman center for entrepreneurship as a hub, not a single program in the area has had the success which ITP has. Go take a look at their course guide for some clues on why this program has been so successful. One thing to note is that this did not come out of an engineering school, it came out of an art school!

Second, Fred references the heavy media presence in New York City. There was the launch of the “Connect Times” in 1989 by Josh Harris. Over the years there was the launch of numerous other digital media outlets including Ziff Davis’ ZDNet and CMP’s TechWeb in 1991. One of the things that I’ve consistently highlighted as being important for any emerging technology and entrepreneurship community is media coverage. In D.C. we are still somewhat behind in our reach but our coverage has improved substantially over the last two years.

Third, in 1995 Mayor Giuliani and Bill Ruden launched 55 Broad St. It was a building from a failed investment bank which was turned into a technology oriented building including high speed internet and incubator space. This is something which still does not exist in D.C. today. The closest thing is a co-working space in Adams Morgan called Affinity Lab but there is nothing supported by the local government.

Finally, there was a large presence of ad networks, new media startups (Silicon Alley Reporter, @NYC, etc), agencies (which were rolled-up) and more. Things quieted down temporarily and then blogging emerged, events launched and the buzz built. We are witnessing the buzz building in D.C. and within the next 12 to 24 months I think we are going to witness D.C. turn into a nationally recognized center for web technology.

D.C. isn’t the only city facing the same challenges though. Chicago, Boston, Austin, Denver, Miami, Atlanta, L.A. and others all are trying to build centers for web technology. Unfortunately for those cities, D.C. is going to beat them to the punch but hopefully they can learn from our success! Check out Fred’s video below for more insight.

This is a continuation in the series on “The Social Web Economy“.

This is one type of company that entrepreneur leaders run. On the social web product companies are those that help give meaning to our media, they provide context. They are also the services that we frequently refer to as “applications” or “apps” for short. Product companies rely on the large distribution companies (as described in the next post) to grow.

There is a constant tension between product and distribution companies. Given the product companies’ reliance on the large platforms they are constantly monitoring the environment to make sure their reach isn’t wiped out overnight by subtle changes by large platforms. Product companies have substantial influence in a number of ways.

First and foremost, these organizations have become the lifeblood of many distribution companies. As such, the platforms have to balance the demands of users and the demands of product companies (which are sometimes referred to as “developers”). We have been watching this play out on the Facebook platform where it has taken more than six months to roll out their new design as they receive feedback from developers and users.

The second form of influence that product companies have is with agencies and advertisers. Successful product companies are ultimately building mini-platforms that compete directly with the platforms that they relied on to build their company. The competition is for advertising dollars and ultimately the team with the best negotiators and best portfolio of advertisers wins.

Next Post: “The Social Web Economy: Distribution Companies“

Last week Tim O’Reilly keynoted at the Web 2.0 Expo and rather than promoting all the potential that Web 2.0 provides, he criticized developers for investing many of their resources on building completely useless applications. From throwing sheep to chugging beer, many of the applications have not provided much substantive value. The question that I have is if it is really the developers who are at fault or is it the users that download and install the applications that should be criticized?

Unraveling the Social Change Equation

Over the past couple years, a large movement has been brewing on the web. With the help of social technology, internet users now have access to over 1.4 billion individuals (Source: Internetworldstats.com). With all of this connectivity, we figure that there must be some way that we can drive change like never before. We have seen the launch of Change.org, Idealist.org, Zaadz.com and a whole slew of newer services that help individuals drive change.

Just last year when Facebook launched their platform, Causes was launched by Sean Parker and Joseph Green and the team has been working to try to drive the number of donations being given through the application. We still have a long way to go though. If you take a look at the top cause on the Causes application, there are over 3.375 million members supporting “Support the Campaign for Cancer Prevention” and $72,697 has been donated. This amounts to approximately $0.02 raised per user.

Advertisements could have easily generated more than $0.02 per user. So can social networks be used to drive change, if so, how?

How Can Social Networks Drive Substantial Change?

It’s clear that there is a ton of untapped potential in social networks to drive change. As Tim O’Reilly pointed out, much of that potential is being funneled into ways that individuals can waste time. Can we really be disappointed by our escapist desires? So far, I have yet to find a single social network which has truly impacted the world in a way that idealists believe social networks could positively impact the world.

Simply through their existence, web-based social networks help to spread democratic ideals and help individuals around the world share their experiences with others. I’d suggest that as a whole we have yet to develop effective metrics for measuring change. Right now Causes could use dollars generated as one metric, but how about the application’s ability to drive users to action?

This is just one metric and I’m sure that there are hundreds of others. We all have that gut feeling that social networks can drive substantial change. Some of them already are but frequently we end up creating a network of individuals that talk about change rather than do something about it. While passive change is one form of change I have a feeling that there is a lot more opportunity out there.

What ways do you think social networks can more effectively drive change? How can we measure the impact?