Do Facebook and iPhone Usage And Application Adoption Represent The End Of The Original Intent Of The Internet?

It seems like Facebook and the iPhone have insidiously  crept up on us without us really comprehending what they are doing to the original concept of the Internet. I though the original intent of the Internet was for everyone to have access to an open environment putting the responsibility on the individual to decide what content they wanted to view. No one would pay for access to applications  and we would decide for ourselves what was good or bad, who our friends are and how we interact with them. Essentially, we would be in control of the content we viewed and the people we interacted with.

If you take a look at what Facebook and Apple are doing it clearly represents a very different concept. Both Facebook and Apple decide what applications you will and will not interact with. All Facebook and Apple iPhone, iPad applications are screened before they appear in the Facebook or iPhone worlds. We see and interact with what they consider to be approved content. Essentially, their acceptance criteria dictates what you and I see on the Internet.

What is surprising and perhaps a bit scary to me is that I have not heard application providers or individuals grumble(a little bit) about the tyranny of Apple and Facebook policies.

The Facebook situation is the more interesting one. The Facebook social network dictates what you do and do not interact with. This control is a bit more insidious then pure application access control. Your profile information is used to encourage you to interact with other people that have similar profiles and use similar applications. For instance, if you went to a certain university you are encouraged to join that University group and interact with that group. If a friend of yours is using an application(which is controlled by Facebook) you are stonlgy encouraged to use that app.

If you step back even further and look at other organizations that are becoming Internet usage aggregaters a picture begins to unfold revealing that only a few organizations are controlling what we see and do on the Internet. Google is an obvious one. They decide what is important and less important when you search for something. Amazon is another. They leverage your buying history to recommend what other products you should buy and what vendors you should buy from. They also host most of the major Web applications on the net with  their cloud computing platform.

You may say that certain parts of the world are not as prone to be influenced by Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. China comes to mind as an argument. However, China in many ways is even more interesting because of the control the Chinese government has over Internet content distribution. In this case RenRen, QQ, TenCent and Baidu are doing the same thing as their complements in the Western world with even greater impact because of the Chinese government's influence or Internet usage.

This observation is not meant to be Orwellian in nature. However, it should make us all start thinking about how much information we are providing these mega aggregaters and how much they are dictating what we see, experience, buy and who we interact with on the net. The next time you drop into Facebook and play Farmville or do a search in Google or buy something from Amazon give the interaction a few seconds of though. Is this what you really want to do or is this something that the aggregaters want you to do?

Kevin Flood is the CEO of Gameinlane, Inc. Kevin writes extensively about online games and their impact and integration into iGaming and E-commerce environments. Kevin is a frequent speaker at online game events and conferences in Asia, Europe and the US. Kevin and his Gameinlane team are currently working with online gambling, social gaming and e-commerce companies integrating social gaming with online gaming operations and integrate game mechanics into e-commerce applications. 

Google Buying Yelp "The Intersection of E-commerce And Social Networking"

The announcement by Google that they intend to buy Yelp has instantly legitimized the Social Networking E-commerce space. Several weeks ago I wrote a blog item pondering the slow migration of E-commerce into the web 2.0 fold. It appears that the pace of activity in this space is about to change.

E-commerce is one of the last frontiers for social networking and web 2.0 adoption. For the most part the traditional online retailers such as Amazon and E-bay have missed out on the benefits of social interaction to increase sales volume and provide visibility for their products. Certainly, E-bay has some organic social networking built into their platform. However, this has never been fully cultivated from a product/services perspective.

Google's recent push into online product sales with their Google store front is certainly underwhelming and an obvious throwback to the web 1.0 days. Clearly, this is only a first toe in the water teaser if Google is buying Yelp. To give Google credit they obviously understand how forgotten and in need of an overhaul E-commerce is. From an E-bay and Amazon perspective I wonder what they are thinking right now.

Yelp is a great invention because it adds user created content to the traditional Yellow Pages model. The review system offers consumers the opportunity to speak-up for what they like and merchants get the benefit of having their product/services featured. The real winner is Yelp because the content is user created requiring little overhead and expense. The consumers also feels "invested" and respected encouraging them to provide more information while driving viral adoption of the service. The missing element for Yelp is actual revenue from product sales. Thus, the Google Store Front Yelp match-up.

The real value of the Google/Yelp move is to illustrate how far e-commerce has to go before it catches up with the current state of online interaction.

1.) What role will Google search capability play in the e-commerce game?
2.) The Facebook/Tweeter virality engines have not been used in an organized way to spread the word on what and want not to buy.
3.) Do not forget the Craigslist bulletin boards of the e-commerce world. They have the user created content and the products for sale. The are just missing the power of social networking.

2010 is going to be the year for innovation, new business models and some very juicy investments and M&A in the E-commerce/Social Networking space. Social Networking E-commerce will become the new buzz term for 2010.

Social Network E-commerce Missed Opportunity Or Next Big Thing

It is a bit of an enigma to me that the social networking and e-commerce worlds have completely bi-passed each other. E-commerce was the first real money maker on the web and web 2.0 has simply past it by. Social networking has been a big hit but not in terms of revenue. It is no secret that all of the big social network platforms are big losers when it comes to monetizing their customer base. This is especially true if you look at revenue per social networking participant and the amount of time each participant spends in a social network environment.

The chart below illustrates the gaping hole in the marketing waiting to be filled by an ambitious social network e-commerce play.

On the left we have the consumer and social network factors and on the right we have the merchant and monetization elements. The upper right hand quadrant is virtually empty with no significant players occupying this space.

So why is this a no man's land? Why are social networking and e-commerce companies afraid of this market position? Why has there not been a marriage made in heaven between e-commerce and social networking?

It appears that the e-commerce sites such as Amazon and E-bay are stuck in web 1.0 land because they have been so successful with their web 1.0 static models. This model has worked well for them and they have invested a lot of time and money establishing brand awareness and building infrastructure. Why change when you have a good thing?

On the other hand the social networking sites such as twitter, facebook, bebo, etc. have focused almost exclusively on a revenue-less model. They have built elaborate systems around this model to make sure that their participants feel that the social networking environment is for them and not for their exploitation. They also have build elaborate systems around this model making it difficult for them to move into the money making quadrant.

There are some notable properties such as Yelp, Craigslist and Angies list that do tease you with the prospect of bringing commerce, merchants, consumer and virality together for the perfect storm. However, realistically these sites appear to be satisfied with their peripheral positions. They too seem to be stuck in a zone that does not really create the momentum or revenue required to take advantage of the opportunity.

Overall, the opportunity to effectively combine the viral benefits of social networking with the revenue per consumer of e-commerce seems to be an opportunity too big to ignore. It also seems unlikely that the traditional e-commerce and social networking companies will fill the gap. We will most likely be surprised by the companies that do occupy this space.