TechCrunch broke the story and has recently been confirmed.  Let the discussions begin…

Facebook has recently rolled out an update to its popular IM system, FbChat.  It allows users to incorporate their customized “Friend Lists” on the chatting platform.  With this update, Facebook now allows users the ability to appear either online or offline to a select group of their friends.  A small, but useful update for those who love to chat while appearing invisible to those random “friends” who you just don’t want to be bothered with.  In fact, a handy tool for any “Facebook stalker.”

Joking aside, the more interesting question raised is: “What is the future of our web interactions?”

With so many modes of communication on the net today, I sometimes wonder what the future has in store.  FbChat is extremely useful to Facebook’s platform as a whole.  I know for me, Instant Messenger (AIM) has been completely replaced through the use of both the GChat (Google) and FbChat services.  And still, despite the luxury of instant messaging, email remains my preferred method of communication…at least for the majority of my online interactions.

So what’s the future of web interaction?  With the push for a more real-time web, many tend to side with instant messaging (can’t get more real-time than that, right?).  What about Twitter’s huge impact on the social web?  Are tweets, microposts, and status updates the new way to share our thoughts and feelings?  Have we completely escaped from the conventional vocal conversation?

What do you think?

How simple is too simple?  Does simplicity facilitate usability?  Do we sacrifice effectiveness for usability?  I start to ask myself these questions as I log on to twitter.com with far less frequency as once before.  Will this 140-character revolution continue on its meteoric rise, or will it become a nostalgic web property of the past?

I have long praised Twitter for creating a whole new platform for communication.  The service is no short of revolutionary; however, I cannot help myself thinking that there lacks a degree of depth in the service.  For me, Twitter’s charm has worn off quite a bit.  This is due in part to a number of factors, none more important that these two:

1) Lack of Metadata and/or Metrics

For the most part, micro-blogging comes and goes.  The stream of messages (depending on how many you are following) is gone in a number of seconds/minutes.  A 140-character message, in Twitter’s case, holds almost no long-term value.  This is a direct result of a platform with little to no metadata.  Besides embedding links and maybe hashtags, a tweet loses a great deal of meaning after it’s initially sent.

2) Better Web Alternatives

Two web services, Facebook and FriendFeed, have undoubtadly looked to Twitter for some degree of inspiration.  Both serve a more complete and interactive micro-blogging platform, as compared to Twitter’s current offering.  Most importantly, they are in a much better position to combat the issue of meta-data and the shelf life of a post.

So, I’ll ask the questions I posed earlier in the post:

How simple is too simple? — Does simplicity facilitate usability? — Do we sacrifice effectiveness for usability?

Twitter is in danger of being replaced by more robust web services.  Simplicity, in my opinion, may ultimately cripple Twitter.  I have long been a proponent of the service, and still wish them the best.  From an end-user’s perspective, however, I am not getting enough value.  Additionally, the service has remained mostly identical from when I signed up over a year ago.  With massive mainstream exposure and a ridiculous spike in users, I feel as though Twitter could have extended the service’s functionality.  For instance, we still don’t have the ability to create groups!  That just doesn’t seem right!  I definitely understand the appeal of simplicity, but in Twitter’s case, this simplicity may come at a price.

Update: Just hours after posting this article, Twitter updated its user interface for everyone.  Now users are shown Trending Topics right on their Twitter homepage.  In addition, users are able to search tweets and save search results for later reference.  A huge step forward for Twitter.

It almost pains me to use MySpace in the title, seeing how much I dislike the service.  In any event, there is something to be said about Facebook’s new “direction”, and how they may be moving towards a product offering similar to that of the mighty content clusterf–k, otherwise known as MySpace.  I’m talking more specifically about Facebook’s recent polling of its users regarding vanity URLs.  It appears that Facebook is entertaining the notion of offering its users customized Facebook URLs.  So, for example,  instead of the very forgettable Facebook profile page of:

facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=11324937&ref=name we will likely see:
facebook.com/kevinpruett

In fact, Facebook has already dished out a select number of vanity URLs to businesses and individuals (see facebook.com/barackobama).  Point being, this is just one necessary step that Facebook must take in order to become a more open service.  A service that didn’t seem all that likely a few years ago, when they were competing for users with MySpace.  Of course, vanity URLs are not a new concept.  Many web services today offer its users a customized URL on their prospective profile page.  But in Facebook’s case, switching to this type of network structure holds greater meaning than you may think.

While MySpace implemented a relatively open and horizontal structure, Facebook represented a much more closed-off, vertical hierarchy; operating behind sub-networks and various levels of privacy.  In the end, Facebook emerged the victor in the social network war by developing a better and more interactive network.  It is no coincidence that Facebook has acquired 200mm+ users in just a few short years.  They are simply the best social network in existence.

But to keep up with the rapid movement towards transparency on the web, Facebook will have to tweak their service.  In doing so, they may end up becoming a bit more like their rival network.

Facebook…Tear Down This Wall

I wrote a post entitled “What Twitter Has That Facebook Doesn’t.”  The post talked about Twitter’s ability to operate transparently, and how it essentially knocks down all the barriers (the barriers Facebook has) to communication.  I ended the post with the following comment: “I can see Twitter accounts being distributed as commonly as email addresses are today — something that Facebook accounts just don’t have the flexibility in executing.”

I believe Facebook understands that in order to facilitate even more conversation and interaction, they must tear down some walls.  The vanity URL topic falls in line with this agenda.  As of late, we have all seen Facebook’s ability to “borrow” features from other web services.  We also know that Zuckerberg and Co. are not afraid of changing the face of their product in order to achieve their desired goals.

So what can we expect from Facebook in the future?

• Expect to see the service continue to strive for increased transparency.
• Going against there original strategy of operating behind a “walled garden,” Facebook will help user profiles step outside of Facebook into the broader world wide web.  Google juice for Facebook profiles will significantly increase.
• Privacy levels will be affected as this transfer occurs.  Users may opt for a public profile, making their profile (facebook.com/theirname) accessible to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
• Facebook becomes the (micro)blogging platform for the “normal” people.

Do any of these predictions remind you of MySpace’s offerings?  What are your predictions for the future of Facebook?

So you have your business idea.  How do you know if it’s a viable one?  According to most venture capitalists (VCs), there is an initial set of guidelines or preliminary questions in which your idea must fulfill or answer.  You can bet that on the top of that list, the following question will appear:

“Do you solve a real problem?”

Outside investors want to understand exactly how your business will solve real-world problems, and subsequently, how your business will add value to your customers and the world at-large.  Obviously, no one would want to invest in a company that is solving a “problem” felt only by 20 people in the world.
I think everyone understands why this question is asked, but is it really the most effective?  Are VCs missing out by limiting themselves to unsubstantial criteria?  Is “solving a real problem” a narrow-minded thinking approach?  I would argue that it is…let me explain.

Take a look at the most successful web and tech companies of late.  I would venture to guess that if you asked them the question, “Do you solve a real problem,” their answers wouldn’t necessarily blow away the VCs that asked the question.  Instead of solving problems, these companies were more interested in creating solutions.  I believe there is a big distinction between the two.  And it is my belief that companies should look towards the latter in order to create an innovative, fresh, and meaningful business.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone sums up my sentiments in one short sentence.  He describes Twitter as, “…the messaging system that we didn’t know we needed until we had it.”  Now, rewind back a few years when Twitter was being developed.  I’m sure if they were to answer the question: “Do you solve a real problem?”, their answers may not have been the most convincing to skeptics.  Most likely they would have been met with rebuttals like, “we already have instant messaging“, “people can already text their friends“, or maybe even “nobody cares about what others are doing“.  Of course, these critics would come to find out they were dead wrong.

The messaging system that we didn’t know we needed until we had it.
-Biz Stone, describing Twitter

Point is, Biz and Co. did not set out to simply solve an existing problem, but instead, took it one step further and created a solution…a solution to a problem that had not yet been defined.

Same can be said about internet giants Google and Facebook.  The fact that Google’s product was simply ‘better’ than the rest hardly meant it solved a real problem.  Taking a look at Facebook, the same can almost be said.  When connecting with friends and colleagues was in its infancy, the naysayers simply couldn’t understand the need for such a service.  Well, Facebook created one.  And it doesn’t stop with these great web firms.  Nearly all successful services go beyond the conventional “problem solving” wisdom.

So the next time you want to gauge your company’s legitimacy, you may want to start thinking about whether or not your company “creates a solution” instead of it simply “solving a problem”.  Doing this will instantly expand your company’s scope and have you thinking laterally, instead of horizontally.  When it comes to being innovative:

Look to create instead of simply solving

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”

-Charles Caleb Colton (1780 – 1832)

There is an obvious trend that exists within today’s internet-based businesses.  Companies are “stealing” other companies’ ideas, concepts, and functionality.  Well, stealing may not be the most accurate description.  I believe the term borrowing may better sum up what is actually happening.  In any event, this post discusses the recent events of companies like Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed, and Google; and how these internet giants and revolutionaries play an integral role in each other’s future development and innovation strategies.

Facebook to Stream “Real Time”

New Facebook: Twitter + FriendFeed + 175 million users

-VentureBeat Headline March 4, 2009

Perhaps the most noteworthy example of “Valley borrowing” involves the redesign of Facebook’s homepage.  In an effort to remain fresh, Facebook has taken a page out of Twitter’s playbook and will now be augmenting users’ ‘News Feed’ to incorporate a “real-time” stream of actions, comments, etc.

Twitter has garnered massive attention for their real time communication platform, and for good reason.  It seems as if everyone is now re-focusing their sites on incorporating some level of “real-time” communication.  It will be interesting to see how Facebook incorporates this microblogging functionality within their huge social network; and most importantly, how users will react and take to it.

FriendFeed Offers Up Free R&D

I had dinner with Scoble and Louis Gray, they both said that Friendfeed was Facebook’s R&D Department. Interesting, I think there’s some truth to it.

-Jeremiah Owyang

Maybe the biggest victim of “Valley borrowing” has been felt by FriendFeed.  So much so that they have even been referred to as the R&D department for several web-based companies.  This aggregation/life-streaming service has been imitated by various internet companies, but none more popular then by both Facebook and Google.

So What’s the Takeaway?

Imagine, for example, Nike, Inc. (NYSE: NIKE) released all of its product details, manufacturing processes, and company resources to the public.  In other words, everybody would have the ability to see how Nike manufactures any particular product, the costs associated, and where the resources are coming from.  This is a pretty wild concept for most.  But this describes how a web-based business exists to the general audience, and most importantly, to current and potential competitors; completely open and virtually barrier-free.  In essence, everybody becomes a source for research and development.

This illustrates why the web have matured so quickly.  Web businesses constantly feed off of their surroundings, augmenting, tweaking, and innovating on top of previous platforms.  And this is exactly why certain web technologies are adopted in such large quantities.  Imagine, again, that all companies operated like the Nike example above.  What sort of companies would take shape from this freedom of information?  Most likely, they would be some of the most efficient, and cost effective companies ever created.  And that is exactly what we are seeing in today’s web firms; some of the most productive “web hybrids” to date.

It boils down to the remaining open and transparent.  And we have seen the benefits in doing this.  Twitter’s open application programming interface (API) standard allowed the service to reach audiences well beyond its initial reach.  We are starting to see more and more web firms gravitate towards open API’s as a result.

The type of comeptition created by “Valley borrowing” is unbelievably fast-paced.  In just a matter of months,  a successful web firm may find themselves forced to shift focus in effort to keep from becoming obsolete.  Web firms are now expected to create the most complete platform possible for their customers/users.  And isn’t that what business is all about?  Creating the best most efficient product for the customer?

After recently rejecting Facebook’s $500 million buyout proposal, micro-blogging phenomenon, Twitter has moved forth acquiring and hiring former O’Reilly CTO Rael Dornfest. This adds fuel to the debate on whether Facebook and Twitter are rivals competing for the same online attention, or if they are instead, two totally independent online communication / information outlets. These are two very interesting platforms, no doubt, with large and promising futures ahead.

It’s very interesting to analyze these two successful (not always measured in dollars and cents, mind you) businesses, and how very different they are. Most notably are their different approaches to openness and complexity. Facebook has operated, so far, in a complete “bubble,” remaining fairly separate from the rest of the web. I believe that this community that Facebook was able to build on the internet is one of the biggest draws, especially at its inception regarding the college campuses that it was penetrating – it served as a virtual campus, sheltered from the “real world,” or the web, in this case. Now, compare this to Twitter. Twitter embraces the web and everything it has to offer, and operates with virtually no boundaries. This coincidentally, has been one of Twitter’s greatest factors to adoption; its openness.

Facebook boasts a very complete, complex profile system chock full of applications, photos, videos, albums, messages, status updates, news feeds, you name it…chances are Facebook has it. The brilliant execution of all these features has made Facebook the top social network to date. As we take a look at Twitter, they retain a completely different mentality, taking the less is more approach and focus on simplicity. And it is this structure that has contributed to Twitter’s success.

It’s very interesting to see how two platforms such as Facebook and Twitter can both be so successful and yet operate so differently. Now, obviously, Facebook is far larger than Twitter, so a true comparison of the companies may be a bit premature for Twitter’s-sake, but it is definitely worth keeping an eye on…and Facebook clearly has. One look at Facebook’s ‘Status Update’ feature and its introduction just shortly after Twitter started to develop a following is testament to the very simple, yet effective platform that Twitter has developed. Which brings me to my final point: What Twitter has that Facebook Doesn’t…

And the answer, is quite simple : Twitter has the ability to connect an individual with anyone, anywhere, at anytime. The same cannot be said for Facebook, or most traditional social networks for that matter. Twitter has removed the need to “Add Friends” and effectively connects individuals regardless of specific networks or communities. To give a very small example of what I mean, Google Analytics reports 8% of my Facebook “Friends” have visited my blog off of a facebook.com referral. Now that number jumps to just shy of 60% when comparing visits off of a twitter.com referral. The point is, Twitter is designed to communicate, network, discuss, and share content on a much more individual level. The stripped-down, bare bones service helps Twitter break the boundaries often created with complex networks.

I think the most interesting thing is that both of these services can coexist without necessarily infringing upon each other (for now at least). It would be hard to find someone without a Facebook account that is on Twitter, and rightfully so. Facebook is an absolutely ridiculous social network that will continue to grow and dominate mainstream. With that said, I can see Twitter accounts being distributed as commonly as email addresses are today — something that Facebook accounts just don’t have the flexibility in executing.

Myspace has announced that they are on course to achieve $1B in revenue this year. This comes at a time where chief competitor, Facebook has surpassed Myspace in overall web traffic, but is looking at numbers far lower than $1B. In fact, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg has admitted the fact that “cashing in” on social networks is still somewhat of a mystery.

Despite this, Zuckerberg is confident that they will be able to figure it out in the near future. Zuckerberg states, “I don’t think social networks can be monetized in the same way that search did. But I’m pretty sure that we will find an analogous business model. In three years from now we have to figure out what the optimum model is. But that is not our primary focus today.”

I don’t think social networks can be monetized in the same way that search did. But I’m pretty sure that we will find an analogous business model. In three years from now we have to figure out what the optimum model is. But that is not our primary focus today.

So who’s the winner of this social network race? Is it Myspace for being the most profitable social network; or do you give it to Facebook for securing the #1 spot in terms of worldwide web traffic?

While both companies seem to have differing strategies and goals, it is Facebook that will ultimately prosper by capturing the attention and loyalty of users around the globe. In terms of social networks, (connecting with friends, family, and peers) Facebook is unrivaled. Facebook acknowledges this and continues to focus on their core competency, connecting individuals…not necessarily profiting off of it just yet.

Social networks, especially monetizing them, is really unchartered territory. One of, if not the most important factor in a successful social network is (you guessed it!) the size of the network. If Facebook is able to become the largest and most powerful social network (and it looks like it’s heading there), this so-called “network effect” will automatically put them in a position to succeed. Let us not forget, it took Larry and Sergey a few years until they saw Google turning a profit.