1) Apple doesn't allow their employees to be photographed or widely associated with a product because some companies *cough*Microsoft*cough* have a long history of poaching Apple employees.
2) Secrecy is not just marketing. Recently some otherwise undistinguished firm beat Apple to a patent filing related to the iPhone. That, along with weakened marketing, angry customers and skittish investors, is the kind of thing that you risk when word of your products leaks. Does Steve take this perhaps a bit too seriously? Yeah. But I can understand why.
3) Show me a profitable social networking model. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that plays to Apple's strengths. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that wouldn't have privacy advocates falling all over themselves to denounce them that plays to Apple's strengths. News Corp. (MySpace) knows how to run an ad-supported business. Yahoo! knows how to run an ad-supported business. Google knows how to run an ad-supported business. Facebook doesn't even know what it's supposed to be, but it's burning through venture capital like it's 1999. Where does Apple fit here? If you can't answer that, then of course the execs aren't going to buy in to your idea. Does anyone have any idea what MySpace spends on servers, colocation and bandwidth? and their site still runs like a dying sloth on morphine.
I predict that the combination of the need of the social networking sites to maintain something of a walled garden in order to monetize their customers combined with the tendency of social networks to destroy garden walls will result in some Web 2.0 or Web 2.5 version of the hyperlink or RSS feed that builds a ground-up, distributed, standards-driven social network in much the same way that hyperlinks now build the same kind of network for information.
You know, I've also been using computers for 25 years and your post suddenly makes me think I NEED a MySpace page along with Plaxo and LinkedIn.
Because when you start to "not get" technological changes all you're good for anymore is management. Your innovation days are done.
If you honestly believe that the only area in which change and innovation is taking place is in social networking technology, then you really must be a "fulltime Facebook employee" (as one of my unemployed relatives who spends all of his time maintaining his Facebook and other social networking profiles lists as his profession).
I simply have no interest in social networking sites because I spend much of my time working on a half-dozen or so projects (technical or otherwise) at any given time (a recent one which I can guarantee that many people on this site have happily used). But hey, my days of innovation are done, I guess I should just give in and spend all of my time participating in the next chapter of reality TV *shudder*. Forget working on innovative ways to use input devices, I should instead strive to have the most interesting Facebook page because I don't get where things are going and that will somehow be more in line with the future of technology.
Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are going. I usually jump in and get involved with whatever I find a passion for at any given time. I'm of the belief that things go wherever we take them. I don't deny that social networking technology will be around for a long time, it's just not an area of technology I find all that interesting. To each their own.
I predict that the combination of the need of the social networking sites to maintain something of a walled garden in order to monetize their customers combined with the tendency of social networks to destroy garden walls will result in some Web 2.0 or Web 2.5 version of the hyperlink or RSS feed that builds a ground-up, distributed, standards-driven social network in much the same way that hyperlinks now build the same kind of network for information.
I agree. Once formal and standardized social networking technology protocols are in place, I'll be willing to bet that bigger companies like Apple and Microsoft will venture into social networking with more professional content creation/management tools and add-ons.
Right now it's everyone trying to carve their niche and get the most number of users locked into their proprietary new technology as possible so that they can get top dollar from advertisers on their site. There's so many new sites popping up each day that it's impossible to know who's social networking technology you should support in your software.
And I honestly can't see Apple jumping into the foray with yet more redundant social networking technology in combination with .mac
3) Show me a profitable social networking model. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that plays to Apple's strengths. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that wouldn't have privacy advocates falling all over themselves to denounce them that plays to Apple's strengths. News Corp. (MySpace) knows how to run an ad-supported business. Yahoo! knows how to run an ad-supported business. Google knows how to run an ad-supported business. Facebook doesn't even know what it's supposed to be, but it's burning through venture capital like it's 1999. Where does Apple fit here? If you can't answer that, then of course the execs aren't going to buy in to your idea. Does anyone have any idea what MySpace spends on servers, colocation and bandwidth? and their site still runs like a dying sloth on morphine.
Bingo. FaceBook hasn't made a dime in profit, AFAIK. Google runs on Ads. And FaceBook they are "valued" at few hundred billion or whatever. Is that the kind of scene Apple wants to be associated with right now? No, IMO.
....Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are going. I usually jump in and get involved with whatever I find a passion for at any given time...
Bingo Too. In the late 90's I got in on Javascript, Web Design and Cold Fusion (remember that?). Early 2000's was more towards Flash. Web design was moving away from bad Photoshop to print/motion-graphic aesthetics etc etc. 2003+ I was more into overall branding graphic stuff and advertising. 2005/6 I bailed from design and moved more into the PC overclocking scene and selling teh Apple stuff.
It's 2008 and while I will be closely involved with Apple stuff, I may be trying to do some more internal training with resellers to bring a lot of n00bs up to speed with the Mac ecosystem.
One day maybe I will tatoo my arms with Fac3B00k T3h pWNS. In bright red gothic letters or something. But not today.
If you honestly believe that the only area in which change and innovation is taking place is in social networking technology, then you really must be a "fulltime Facebook employee" (as one of my unemployed relatives who spends all of his time maintaining his Facebook and other social networking profiles lists as his profession).
Of course not. However, there are significant professional uses for social networking software and techniques. Poo-pooing them just because of teen facebook/myspace usage indicates that you don't get it.
It's one thing to not care about an area of advancement. Its another to be openly hostile.
Quote:
Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are going. I usually jump in and get involved with whatever I find a passion for at any given time. I'm of the belief that things go wherever we take them. I don't deny that social networking technology will be around for a long time, it's just not an area of technology I find all that interesting. To each their own.
Apple lost a good researcher in a domain that helps people collaborate. You're glad that "Apple is staying focused on software for professional users (What? iLife is for pros?) and steering clear of the fickle world of social networking". You made disparaging remarks about how superior face to face interaction is more "gratifying" than digitial interaction and you now equate social networking users to your loser relative who is unemployed.
These are exactly the same attitudes from boomers that simply don't get how young people engage each other.
Oh, and MS does have social networking tools for professionals today. Sharepoint, Communicator (IM), etc. They have a social computing group at MS research that eventually feeds mainline development into enterprise apps. Social networking exists in every organization...especially the large ones that invests in enterprise level collaboration tools.
Blogs and Wikis - available to all SharePoint versions
Business networking tools like LinkedIn and Plaxo help maintain professional social networks and folks often posts professional/business questions to their social networks, find jobs via their on-line networks, etc.
LinkedIn and professional social networks are lightly used today because many professionals are older and didn't grow up with it. When the facebook/myspace generation hits the workplace I believe these will be a primary professional networking channel. Not being able to fit into that social networking style and not being able to manipulate it to achieve the desired impression/reputation will be like not being able to play golf.
But hey, social networking isn't for professionals. Its just one of those fickle teen fads...
Here's a concrete example of how Apple could make their existing products more socialistic - iTunes sharing. Although crippled at the behest of the RIAA, it's still an amazing way to find music. Sitting in a large university library, I can pick up a dozen or so shared music libraries and browse through them in a way that is utterly unique and quite pleasurable: sort-of a cross between listening to the radio and flicking through someone's music collection at their home (showing my age with a vinyl-based metaphor, there). As well as finding out what people are listening to, your understanding of taste is transformed - for one thing, you realize people's tastes are a lot more eclectic than marketing categories, or most music journalism, would have you believe. Anyone who hasn't done this is unlikely to get how charming it is: not an age thing, it's an experience thing.
Problem is, as well as having been downgraded (connections per-library-per day are capped, as are simultaneous connections per library), it's braindead. Why is there is no way to log who is listening to my music? Why is there no way to message people listening to my music? I've seen people using their library names as a crude broadcast-messaging system, so the demand is absolutely there, and obvious. I don't even know if iPhone and iPod Touch have this level of sharing? I'm not familiar with Zune, but I see they have made social tools a big selling point of the brand. Apple-watchers need to realize that getting the Beatles on iTunes, much as I love them, is not necessarily the single biggest improvement that could be made to the service.
But hey, social networking isn't for professionals. Its just one of those fickle teen fads...
Well, I just lost a reply because of social networking technology. It's no wonder I don't use it on a regular basis.
Anyways, the gist of my reply is that I never said it was a fad. I specifically said that I know it'll be around for a long time. And It's already been around for a while if you consider newsgroups and mailing lists to be social networking.
However, the hodge podge of installing/maintaining/learning the interfaces and content on a half-dozen or so social networking sites (and complaining about the UIs or about losing data like I just did) just isn't really a good use of my time.
What you need to realize is that there are lines of work in which social networking isn't really related to your success. Though admittedly, I do find Wikis to be a useful way to navigate and organize information related to my work. And as a casual hobby, it's just not streamlined enough to fit any purpose I'd have for it at this point given the amount of free time I have.
But I agree that I've been unfair by painting all users with the "I need a virtual stage for my life" brush. I have friends who are musicians for whom social networking is a great way to promote themselves and organize events.
Anyways, I had all of that written more eloquently, but I just don't have anymore time to spare on this. I'll make sure to copy it to the clipboard before I try to post this time.
Of course not. However, there are significant professional uses for social networking software and techniques. Poo-pooing them just because of teen facebook/myspace usage indicates that you don't get it.
I agree. In many cases, myspace usage is exactly why some indie bands and films post there. I know teens can be very fickle, but it's still a huge promotional opportunity. The pages I've seen don't necessarily reveal the lives of the people that make those works. I think my sister has gone to concerts she wouldn't have known about if it weren't for myspace. If it wasn't for facebook, there's a movie that I didn't hear about otherwise.
Quote:
It's one thing to not care about an area of advancement. Its another to be openly hostile.
I don't know if I'd go as far as being openly hostile, but I don't know the specific policies. Apple is quite an aloof / distant organization in many ways but I can see why they have some of their policies. I can see that it's not necessarily to Apple's advantage to have their employees openly posting stuff about Apple. Also, Apple doesn't have to provide every service to their customers. As long as their hardware and software works well, I think it's sufficient enablement to allow Apple customers to access social network sites.
Given that few to no social networking services seem to be agile enough to remain relevant for more than five years, most seem to fade in three it's probably too much to expect Apple to stay ahead on that curve in the long term.
Here's a concrete example of how Apple could make their existing products more socialistic - iTunes sharing. Although crippled at the behest of the RIAA, it's still an amazing way to find music. Sitting in a large university library, I can pick up a dozen or so shared music libraries and browse through them in a way that is utterly unique and quite pleasurable: sort-of a cross between listening to the radio and flicking through someone's music collection at their home (showing my age with a vinyl-based metaphor, there). As well as finding out what people are listening to, your understanding of taste is transformed - for one thing, you realize people's tastes are a lot more eclectic than marketing categories, or most music journalism, would have you believe. Anyone who hasn't done this is unlikely to get how charming it is: not an age thing, it's an experience thing.
Say more. I hadn't thought of this, please expand or give other examples.
Though I am a little uncomfortable about giving people that kind of access into my life. But you did go further and pointed out where Apple could give better control of iTunes sharing.
At the simplest level, it's about having finer-grained control over the service that I'm sharing - streaming access to my iTunes Library. It's common courtesy that iTunes should tell me WHAT is being listened to (there is a Dashboard widget that claims to be able to find out, but I've never got it to work). I'm also arguing that I should be able to see WHO is connected: if for no other reason than because I know for a fact that many users don't initially cotton that, in sharing their music, they are broadcasting their library name on the subnet via Bonjour, which by default is their long user name, which is often their real name. So there's almost a minor privacy issue stemming from the underdevelopment of the service - the concept of sharing needs to be more explicit, since many don't know how it works.
So you have a group of people merrily listening in on each other's music in some place. Fun as it is to wonder if the person sitting opposite is the one with the excellent taste, or not, messaging through iTunes would allow you to find out if it is. Or, if anonymity is desired, to recommend more music like that which someone is listening to, or to rate what's on other people's laptops. You are already networked at one level, through a kind of peer-to-peer radio service: it should be possible to use that connection in other ways, or at least to collect information about how the service is being used.
Of course it would be possibly to build a whole myspace-type infrastructure on top of this, right there in the iTunes app: then you have to think about, as you say, what levels of access you want to give people into your life. Many are willing to give quite a lot - too much information, at times, in my opinion. But there are already Facebook applications that tie into iTunes libraries, so I don't doubt that some of this is coming, and that there are many privacy, security and IP issues to be considered. The question remains: does Apple want to provide that infrastructure, or merely services for others to build it? But I do think that what they already provide could be smarter, and that the arrant cheesiness of the iTunes store, market leader though it is, will not be enough in future. In fact, ITS and the unwarrantable compromises that Apple has made with media companies to get content on it, is probably the biggest obstacle to even the very modest extensions I'm proposing.
Thank you Arthur. Is there anything more besides ITunes and MySpace to Social Networking? I ask this because until two years ago networking at work consisted only of email and file storage. (You wouldn't believe the blank looks I got when I tried to use the calendar features of Outlook. I am now with a more online bunch but we are still on a secure network where personal computers and applications are not allowed.) It would be nice to know what Social Networking really means to those using it, not what the scare mongers want us to believe.
Of course it would be possibly to build a whole myspace-type infrastructure on top of this, right there in the iTunes app: then you have to think about, as you say, what levels of access you want to give people into your life. Many are willing to give quite a lot - too much information, at times, in my opinion. But there are already Facebook applications that tie into iTunes libraries, so I don't doubt that some of this is coming, and that there are many privacy, security and IP issues to be considered. The question remains: does Apple want to provide that infrastructure, or merely services for others to build it? But I do think that what they already provide could be smarter, and that the arrant cheesiness of the iTunes store, market leader though it is, will not be enough in future. In fact, ITS and the unwarrantable compromises that Apple has made with media companies to get content on it, is probably the biggest obstacle to even the very modest extensions I'm proposing.
I like your thinking.
iTunes already has iMixes, customer reviews, "people who bought this album also bought," etc. Most of what you are envisioning could be implemented with tighter integration of the existing social aspects of iTMS (which are currently under-advertised and underused) and an automatic filtering of reviews, mixes, etc. by the accounts currently participating in any given Bonjour network.
The major obstacle is of course the music industry, which does not want its IP to be the basis of a social network of any kind.
The major obstacle is of course the music industry, which does not want its IP to be the basis of a social network of any kind.
And to be fair, it's hard to see how they could get paid through the iTunes sharing I'm describing. I'm sure they unwittingly let Apple implement it as a novelty, then demanded they cripple it when they realized the implications. Now Apple changes the DAAP protocol on a regular basis, preventing others from piggying on to it. But at least let me SEE others' libraries and annotations at no cost: maybe I'll take a chance and buy something I like the look of.
And to be fair, it's hard to see how they could get paid....
I think there are very interesting ideas here but at the end of the day, the "getting paid" part is something Apple + "evil media industry" would have to be interested in first.
Clearly, we need a conversation about social networking, since we don't agree on what it is! I'd be interested in hearing others' definitions, but to...
Well, I've been around for a long time, as I said, and I work in the software industry. If you take the term "social networking" in a generic sense, you are right of course. This is a form of social networking. However, the term "social networking" as became a buzzword with FaceBook/MySpace type sites, so it has that connotation. It's like "peer to peer". Back in the modem days, we exchanged files peer to peer all the time. We just didn't call it that. You see my point?
Now we have clever markety names for everything. Young people think a lot more of this is new than it really is. But some of it is new. It's tricky.
Web 2.0 does not exist as such. It is just another buzzword some companies like because it allows them to sell software to executives who don't understand technology very well. It's shorthand for saying "the web application servers/tools/databases we are selling you now let you do stuff that before was more difficult with the ones we sold you a few years ago, due to X, Y, and Z technical reasons you wouldn't understand anyway, so we are calling it Web 2.0 for you".
Well, I've been around for a long time, as I said, and I work in the software industry. If you take the term "social networking" in a generic sense, you are right of course. This is a form of social networking. However, the term "social networking" as became a buzzword with FaceBook/MySpace type sites, so it has that connotation. It's like "peer to peer". Back in the modem days, we exchanged files peer to peer all the time. We just didn't call it that. You see my point?
Now we have clever markety names for everything. Young people think a lot more of this is new than it really is. But some of it is new. It's tricky.
Web 2.0 does not exist as such. It is just another buzzword some companies like because it allows them to sell software to executives who don't understand technology very well. It's shorthand for saying "the web application servers/tools/databases we are selling you now let you do stuff that before was more difficult with the ones we sold you a few years ago, due to X, Y, and Z technical reasons you wouldn't understand anyway, so we are calling it Web 2.0 for you".
I think we're in agreement here: both the term "Web 2.0" and "social networking" indicate, at best, an increase in excitement about things that have been around for some time (just ask the sociologists, who were kicking around the concept of "social networks" in the 1940s). I work in media, where nothing is entirely new, until people start thinking it is and acting accordingly. Then, interesting things can happen. But it seems as if the culture needs both to experience a technology as same-old and as new-and-improved-before it can be assimilated. In other words, we need both the greybeards and the neophiles.
I think there are very interesting ideas here but at the end of the day, the "getting paid" part is something Apple + "evil media industry" would have to be interested in first.
Here are three ways, building or contrasting with iTunes' current sharing capability:
1. Sharing one's library, but smarter. I listen to someone's music library, I have a bunch of social tools built into that connection, and a big button marked 'Purchase' next to each track that can be found in the iTunes store, as some online radio playlists already have. Or to buy from other stores, like Amazon - Apple in my opinion ought to get out of the music retail business altogether, and just rent space out in iTunes for media creators of whatever size to set out their stalls. Picking Single of the Week is not their core business - they are not particularly good at it, and their credibility here can only decline. But how hard would the button be, Apple? As Amorph said, some social tools already exist at the level of the store, and could also be implemented peer-to-peer. Matching versions of particular tunes on a peer to ones for sale on iTS would maybe be tricky, since as far as I know no digital format embeds unique IDs. And really, I ought to get a cut off the sale if I've turned someone on to something, but that may require further thinking through. At least have iTunes log my listening, so I can buy it later. Ideally, iTunes would have a public API, if the media industry would let it, but given recent revelations about dTrace not working on iTunes, i doubt it.
2. Sharing of playlist data over local connections and beyond, but you can only actually listen to the music, stream or download, off a giant server at the earth's core - by subscription. This may meet with resistance from greybeards like Jobs, who insists that people only understand an acquisition-based model of music consumption. And it's true that sharing as it is currently implemented in iTunes is like sharing your own personal hoard, and that's part of the experience. But on the other hand, I no longer want to own media. I used to: but that stuff, particularly vinyl, is heavy and moving it as I move house is a pain. I never even wanted to own a CD or a DVD, since they are shitty little silver discs wrapped in plastic and air, nothing like the books their design is somewhat modelled on, but I seem to have acquired lots of them anyway. It's even getting to be that I no longer even want to manage the library I have on hard disk. It's too big and I have to worry about backing it up. Further, iTunes is notoriously poor at managing a library on a network, particularly if you want to manage music across several machines and devices - thank you again, 'evil media industry'. So I can see a future in the subscription-based services who are not so much selling media to 'own', in the limited sense that media law permits one to, as selling access to social networks based on music. Advertising would like this quite a bit as well.
3. Sharing of music as of now, but based on location rather than proximity. At the moment I can pick up people's iTunes libraries if they are in range. What if the bar I am in allows me to buy the music being played over the PA, from my iPhone/Pod? Or allows me to pay something and share a mix or a track for others in the bar to listen to over the PA, sort of like putting money in the jukebox, or to download and listen to later, and to send me a message if they liked it? Or they could outbid me or vote to get my terrible selection off! The music industry is already getting into venues and live music, since recorded music is doing so badly. This model also resembles a whole promotional structure that the music industry is very familiar with, from the days of the earliest jukeboxes in soda fountains (they are never going back to letting jukebox manufacturers dictate terms, by the way), to present-day street teams going around barbers and bars showering the allegedly funky with promos. No doubt this concept is old hat in Japan - I do remember bring-your-ipod-to a bar nights cropping up a few years ago in the US and UK.
Anyhow, sorry for playing fantasy social network at such length: hopefully, others will pick out the bits that make sense, and those that don't. Or else it'll all happen anyway, either from the bottom-up or given to us by Apple from on high..
...Web 2.0 does not exist as such. It is just another buzzword some companies like because it allows them to sell software to executives who don't understand technology very well. It's shorthand for saying "the web application servers/tools/databases we are selling you now let you do stuff that before was more difficult with the ones we sold you a few years ago, due to X, Y, and Z technical reasons you wouldn't understand anyway, so we are calling it Web 2.0 for you".
Wow. Finally someone explained to me what the HELL this Web 2.0 stuff is. Bloody hell. Finally. Thank you. As someone who was involved in the Web 1.0 revolution ... I had no bloody idea what this Web 2.0 bollocks was all about.
Wow. Finally someone explained to me what the HELL this Web 2.0 stuff is. Bloody hell. Finally. Thank you. As someone who was involved in the Web 1.0 revolution ... I had no bloody idea what this Web 2.0 bollocks was all about.
A lot of it is rebranded and repackaged. RSS and "feeds" weren't the first to do what they did, they were called "push" and "channels". AJAX wasn't new, it was originally called something else, I don't remember what. I heard there was an article on where all these "Web 2.0" technologies really came from, but I still have not been able to find it. The first incarnation of many of the technologies were foisted upon us by companies like Microsoft and such, were rejected and then dropped. I think most of the second incarnation was generally redone by individuals and caught on in a grass-roots manner before marketers decided to exploit them for their own uses.
Comments
1) Apple doesn't allow their employees to be photographed or widely associated with a product because some companies *cough*Microsoft*cough* have a long history of poaching Apple employees.
2) Secrecy is not just marketing. Recently some otherwise undistinguished firm beat Apple to a patent filing related to the iPhone. That, along with weakened marketing, angry customers and skittish investors, is the kind of thing that you risk when word of your products leaks. Does Steve take this perhaps a bit too seriously? Yeah. But I can understand why.
3) Show me a profitable social networking model. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that plays to Apple's strengths. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that wouldn't have privacy advocates falling all over themselves to denounce them that plays to Apple's strengths. News Corp. (MySpace) knows how to run an ad-supported business. Yahoo! knows how to run an ad-supported business. Google knows how to run an ad-supported business. Facebook doesn't even know what it's supposed to be, but it's burning through venture capital like it's 1999. Where does Apple fit here? If you can't answer that, then of course the execs aren't going to buy in to your idea. Does anyone have any idea what MySpace spends on servers, colocation and bandwidth? and their site still runs like a dying sloth on morphine.
I predict that the combination of the need of the social networking sites to maintain something of a walled garden in order to monetize their customers combined with the tendency of social networks to destroy garden walls will result in some Web 2.0 or Web 2.5 version of the hyperlink or RSS feed that builds a ground-up, distributed, standards-driven social network in much the same way that hyperlinks now build the same kind of network for information.
You know, I've also been using computers for 25 years and your post suddenly makes me think I NEED a MySpace page along with Plaxo and LinkedIn.
Because when you start to "not get" technological changes all you're good for anymore is management. Your innovation days are done.
If you honestly believe that the only area in which change and innovation is taking place is in social networking technology, then you really must be a "fulltime Facebook employee" (as one of my unemployed relatives who spends all of his time maintaining his Facebook and other social networking profiles lists as his profession).
I simply have no interest in social networking sites because I spend much of my time working on a half-dozen or so projects (technical or otherwise) at any given time (a recent one which I can guarantee that many people on this site have happily used). But hey, my days of innovation are done, I guess I should just give in and spend all of my time participating in the next chapter of reality TV *shudder*. Forget working on innovative ways to use input devices, I should instead strive to have the most interesting Facebook page because I don't get where things are going and that will somehow be more in line with the future of technology.
Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are going. I usually jump in and get involved with whatever I find a passion for at any given time. I'm of the belief that things go wherever we take them. I don't deny that social networking technology will be around for a long time, it's just not an area of technology I find all that interesting. To each their own.
I predict that the combination of the need of the social networking sites to maintain something of a walled garden in order to monetize their customers combined with the tendency of social networks to destroy garden walls will result in some Web 2.0 or Web 2.5 version of the hyperlink or RSS feed that builds a ground-up, distributed, standards-driven social network in much the same way that hyperlinks now build the same kind of network for information.
I agree. Once formal and standardized social networking technology protocols are in place, I'll be willing to bet that bigger companies like Apple and Microsoft will venture into social networking with more professional content creation/management tools and add-ons.
Right now it's everyone trying to carve their niche and get the most number of users locked into their proprietary new technology as possible so that they can get top dollar from advertisers on their site. There's so many new sites popping up each day that it's impossible to know who's social networking technology you should support in your software.
And I honestly can't see Apple jumping into the foray with yet more redundant social networking technology in combination with .mac
3) Show me a profitable social networking model. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that plays to Apple's strengths. Better yet, show me a profitable social networking model that wouldn't have privacy advocates falling all over themselves to denounce them that plays to Apple's strengths. News Corp. (MySpace) knows how to run an ad-supported business. Yahoo! knows how to run an ad-supported business. Google knows how to run an ad-supported business. Facebook doesn't even know what it's supposed to be, but it's burning through venture capital like it's 1999. Where does Apple fit here? If you can't answer that, then of course the execs aren't going to buy in to your idea. Does anyone have any idea what MySpace spends on servers, colocation and bandwidth? and their site still runs like a dying sloth on morphine.
Bingo. FaceBook hasn't made a dime in profit, AFAIK. Google runs on Ads. And FaceBook they are "valued" at few hundred billion or whatever. Is that the kind of scene Apple wants to be associated with right now? No, IMO.
....Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are going. I usually jump in and get involved with whatever I find a passion for at any given time...
Bingo Too. In the late 90's I got in on Javascript, Web Design and Cold Fusion (remember that?). Early 2000's was more towards Flash. Web design was moving away from bad Photoshop to print/motion-graphic aesthetics etc etc. 2003+ I was more into overall branding graphic stuff and advertising. 2005/6 I bailed from design and moved more into the PC overclocking scene and selling teh Apple stuff.
It's 2008 and while I will be closely involved with Apple stuff, I may be trying to do some more internal training with resellers to bring a lot of n00bs up to speed with the Mac ecosystem.
One day maybe I will tatoo my arms with Fac3B00k T3h pWNS. In bright red gothic letters or something. But not today.
If you honestly believe that the only area in which change and innovation is taking place is in social networking technology, then you really must be a "fulltime Facebook employee" (as one of my unemployed relatives who spends all of his time maintaining his Facebook and other social networking profiles lists as his profession).
Of course not. However, there are significant professional uses for social networking software and techniques. Poo-pooing them just because of teen facebook/myspace usage indicates that you don't get it.
It's one thing to not care about an area of advancement. Its another to be openly hostile.
Personally, I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are going. I usually jump in and get involved with whatever I find a passion for at any given time. I'm of the belief that things go wherever we take them. I don't deny that social networking technology will be around for a long time, it's just not an area of technology I find all that interesting. To each their own.
Apple lost a good researcher in a domain that helps people collaborate. You're glad that "Apple is staying focused on software for professional users (What? iLife is for pros?) and steering clear of the fickle world of social networking". You made disparaging remarks about how superior face to face interaction is more "gratifying" than digitial interaction and you now equate social networking users to your loser relative who is unemployed.
These are exactly the same attitudes from boomers that simply don't get how young people engage each other.
Oh, and MS does have social networking tools for professionals today. Sharepoint, Communicator (IM), etc. They have a social computing group at MS research that eventually feeds mainline development into enterprise apps. Social networking exists in every organization...especially the large ones that invests in enterprise level collaboration tools.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sh...758691033.aspx
Social Networking Webparts - part of MOSS 2007
Blogs and Wikis - available to all SharePoint versions
Business networking tools like LinkedIn and Plaxo help maintain professional social networks and folks often posts professional/business questions to their social networks, find jobs via their on-line networks, etc.
LinkedIn and professional social networks are lightly used today because many professionals are older and didn't grow up with it. When the facebook/myspace generation hits the workplace I believe these will be a primary professional networking channel. Not being able to fit into that social networking style and not being able to manipulate it to achieve the desired impression/reputation will be like not being able to play golf.
But hey, social networking isn't for professionals. Its just one of those fickle teen fads...
Problem is, as well as having been downgraded (connections per-library-per day are capped, as are simultaneous connections per library), it's braindead. Why is there is no way to log who is listening to my music? Why is there no way to message people listening to my music? I've seen people using their library names as a crude broadcast-messaging system, so the demand is absolutely there, and obvious. I don't even know if iPhone and iPod Touch have this level of sharing? I'm not familiar with Zune, but I see they have made social tools a big selling point of the brand. Apple-watchers need to realize that getting the Beatles on iTunes, much as I love them, is not necessarily the single biggest improvement that could be made to the service.
But hey, social networking isn't for professionals. Its just one of those fickle teen fads...
Well, I just lost a reply because of social networking technology. It's no wonder I don't use it on a regular basis.
Anyways, the gist of my reply is that I never said it was a fad. I specifically said that I know it'll be around for a long time. And It's already been around for a while if you consider newsgroups and mailing lists to be social networking.
However, the hodge podge of installing/maintaining/learning the interfaces and content on a half-dozen or so social networking sites (and complaining about the UIs or about losing data like I just did) just isn't really a good use of my time.
What you need to realize is that there are lines of work in which social networking isn't really related to your success. Though admittedly, I do find Wikis to be a useful way to navigate and organize information related to my work. And as a casual hobby, it's just not streamlined enough to fit any purpose I'd have for it at this point given the amount of free time I have.
But I agree that I've been unfair by painting all users with the "I need a virtual stage for my life" brush. I have friends who are musicians for whom social networking is a great way to promote themselves and organize events.
Anyways, I had all of that written more eloquently, but I just don't have anymore time to spare on this. I'll make sure to copy it to the clipboard before I try to post this time.
Of course not. However, there are significant professional uses for social networking software and techniques. Poo-pooing them just because of teen facebook/myspace usage indicates that you don't get it.
I agree. In many cases, myspace usage is exactly why some indie bands and films post there. I know teens can be very fickle, but it's still a huge promotional opportunity. The pages I've seen don't necessarily reveal the lives of the people that make those works. I think my sister has gone to concerts she wouldn't have known about if it weren't for myspace. If it wasn't for facebook, there's a movie that I didn't hear about otherwise.
It's one thing to not care about an area of advancement. Its another to be openly hostile.
I don't know if I'd go as far as being openly hostile, but I don't know the specific policies. Apple is quite an aloof / distant organization in many ways but I can see why they have some of their policies. I can see that it's not necessarily to Apple's advantage to have their employees openly posting stuff about Apple. Also, Apple doesn't have to provide every service to their customers. As long as their hardware and software works well, I think it's sufficient enablement to allow Apple customers to access social network sites.
Given that few to no social networking services seem to be agile enough to remain relevant for more than five years, most seem to fade in three it's probably too much to expect Apple to stay ahead on that curve in the long term.
Here's a concrete example of how Apple could make their existing products more socialistic - iTunes sharing. Although crippled at the behest of the RIAA, it's still an amazing way to find music. Sitting in a large university library, I can pick up a dozen or so shared music libraries and browse through them in a way that is utterly unique and quite pleasurable: sort-of a cross between listening to the radio and flicking through someone's music collection at their home (showing my age with a vinyl-based metaphor, there). As well as finding out what people are listening to, your understanding of taste is transformed - for one thing, you realize people's tastes are a lot more eclectic than marketing categories, or most music journalism, would have you believe. Anyone who hasn't done this is unlikely to get how charming it is: not an age thing, it's an experience thing.
Say more. I hadn't thought of this, please expand or give other examples.
Though I am a little uncomfortable about giving people that kind of access into my life. But you did go further and pointed out where Apple could give better control of iTunes sharing.
Say more.
At the simplest level, it's about having finer-grained control over the service that I'm sharing - streaming access to my iTunes Library. It's common courtesy that iTunes should tell me WHAT is being listened to (there is a Dashboard widget that claims to be able to find out, but I've never got it to work). I'm also arguing that I should be able to see WHO is connected: if for no other reason than because I know for a fact that many users don't initially cotton that, in sharing their music, they are broadcasting their library name on the subnet via Bonjour, which by default is their long user name, which is often their real name. So there's almost a minor privacy issue stemming from the underdevelopment of the service - the concept of sharing needs to be more explicit, since many don't know how it works.
So you have a group of people merrily listening in on each other's music in some place. Fun as it is to wonder if the person sitting opposite is the one with the excellent taste, or not, messaging through iTunes would allow you to find out if it is. Or, if anonymity is desired, to recommend more music like that which someone is listening to, or to rate what's on other people's laptops. You are already networked at one level, through a kind of peer-to-peer radio service: it should be possible to use that connection in other ways, or at least to collect information about how the service is being used.
Of course it would be possibly to build a whole myspace-type infrastructure on top of this, right there in the iTunes app: then you have to think about, as you say, what levels of access you want to give people into your life. Many are willing to give quite a lot - too much information, at times, in my opinion. But there are already Facebook applications that tie into iTunes libraries, so I don't doubt that some of this is coming, and that there are many privacy, security and IP issues to be considered. The question remains: does Apple want to provide that infrastructure, or merely services for others to build it? But I do think that what they already provide could be smarter, and that the arrant cheesiness of the iTunes store, market leader though it is, will not be enough in future. In fact, ITS and the unwarrantable compromises that Apple has made with media companies to get content on it, is probably the biggest obstacle to even the very modest extensions I'm proposing.
Of course it would be possibly to build a whole myspace-type infrastructure on top of this, right there in the iTunes app: then you have to think about, as you say, what levels of access you want to give people into your life. Many are willing to give quite a lot - too much information, at times, in my opinion. But there are already Facebook applications that tie into iTunes libraries, so I don't doubt that some of this is coming, and that there are many privacy, security and IP issues to be considered. The question remains: does Apple want to provide that infrastructure, or merely services for others to build it? But I do think that what they already provide could be smarter, and that the arrant cheesiness of the iTunes store, market leader though it is, will not be enough in future. In fact, ITS and the unwarrantable compromises that Apple has made with media companies to get content on it, is probably the biggest obstacle to even the very modest extensions I'm proposing.
I like your thinking.
iTunes already has iMixes, customer reviews, "people who bought this album also bought," etc. Most of what you are envisioning could be implemented with tighter integration of the existing social aspects of iTMS (which are currently under-advertised and underused) and an automatic filtering of reviews, mixes, etc. by the accounts currently participating in any given Bonjour network.
The major obstacle is of course the music industry, which does not want its IP to be the basis of a social network of any kind.
The major obstacle is of course the music industry, which does not want its IP to be the basis of a social network of any kind.
And to be fair, it's hard to see how they could get paid through the iTunes sharing I'm describing. I'm sure they unwittingly let Apple implement it as a novelty, then demanded they cripple it when they realized the implications. Now Apple changes the DAAP protocol on a regular basis, preventing others from piggying on to it. But at least let me SEE others' libraries and annotations at no cost: maybe I'll take a chance and buy something I like the look of.
And to be fair, it's hard to see how they could get paid....
I think there are very interesting ideas here but at the end of the day, the "getting paid" part is something Apple + "evil media industry"
Clearly, we need a conversation about social networking, since we don't agree on what it is! I'd be interested in hearing others' definitions, but to...
Well, I've been around for a long time, as I said, and I work in the software industry. If you take the term "social networking" in a generic sense, you are right of course. This is a form of social networking. However, the term "social networking" as became a buzzword with FaceBook/MySpace type sites, so it has that connotation. It's like "peer to peer". Back in the modem days, we exchanged files peer to peer all the time. We just didn't call it that. You see my point?
Now we have clever markety names for everything. Young people think a lot more of this is new than it really is. But some of it is new. It's tricky.
Web 2.0 does not exist as such. It is just another buzzword some companies like because it allows them to sell software to executives who don't understand technology very well. It's shorthand for saying "the web application servers/tools/databases we are selling you now let you do stuff that before was more difficult with the ones we sold you a few years ago, due to X, Y, and Z technical reasons you wouldn't understand anyway, so we are calling it Web 2.0 for you".
Well, I've been around for a long time, as I said, and I work in the software industry. If you take the term "social networking" in a generic sense, you are right of course. This is a form of social networking. However, the term "social networking" as became a buzzword with FaceBook/MySpace type sites, so it has that connotation. It's like "peer to peer". Back in the modem days, we exchanged files peer to peer all the time. We just didn't call it that. You see my point?
Now we have clever markety names for everything. Young people think a lot more of this is new than it really is. But some of it is new. It's tricky.
Web 2.0 does not exist as such. It is just another buzzword some companies like because it allows them to sell software to executives who don't understand technology very well. It's shorthand for saying "the web application servers/tools/databases we are selling you now let you do stuff that before was more difficult with the ones we sold you a few years ago, due to X, Y, and Z technical reasons you wouldn't understand anyway, so we are calling it Web 2.0 for you".
I think we're in agreement here: both the term "Web 2.0" and "social networking" indicate, at best, an increase in excitement about things that have been around for some time (just ask the sociologists, who were kicking around the concept of "social networks" in the 1940s). I work in media, where nothing is entirely new, until people start thinking it is and acting accordingly. Then, interesting things can happen. But it seems as if the culture needs both to experience a technology as same-old and as new-and-improved-before it can be assimilated. In other words, we need both the greybeards and the neophiles.
I think there are very interesting ideas here but at the end of the day, the "getting paid" part is something Apple + "evil media industry"
Here are three ways, building or contrasting with iTunes' current sharing capability:
1. Sharing one's library, but smarter. I listen to someone's music library, I have a bunch of social tools built into that connection, and a big button marked 'Purchase' next to each track that can be found in the iTunes store, as some online radio playlists already have. Or to buy from other stores, like Amazon - Apple in my opinion ought to get out of the music retail business altogether, and just rent space out in iTunes for media creators of whatever size to set out their stalls. Picking Single of the Week is not their core business - they are not particularly good at it, and their credibility here can only decline. But how hard would the button be, Apple? As Amorph said, some social tools already exist at the level of the store, and could also be implemented peer-to-peer. Matching versions of particular tunes on a peer to ones for sale on iTS would maybe be tricky, since as far as I know no digital format embeds unique IDs. And really, I ought to get a cut off the sale if I've turned someone on to something, but that may require further thinking through. At least have iTunes log my listening, so I can buy it later. Ideally, iTunes would have a public API, if the media industry would let it, but given recent revelations about dTrace not working on iTunes, i doubt it.
2. Sharing of playlist data over local connections and beyond, but you can only actually listen to the music, stream or download, off a giant server at the earth's core - by subscription. This may meet with resistance from greybeards like Jobs, who insists that people only understand an acquisition-based model of music consumption. And it's true that sharing as it is currently implemented in iTunes is like sharing your own personal hoard, and that's part of the experience. But on the other hand, I no longer want to own media. I used to: but that stuff, particularly vinyl, is heavy and moving it as I move house is a pain. I never even wanted to own a CD or a DVD, since they are shitty little silver discs wrapped in plastic and air, nothing like the books their design is somewhat modelled on, but I seem to have acquired lots of them anyway. It's even getting to be that I no longer even want to manage the library I have on hard disk. It's too big and I have to worry about backing it up. Further, iTunes is notoriously poor at managing a library on a network, particularly if you want to manage music across several machines and devices - thank you again, 'evil media industry'. So I can see a future in the subscription-based services who are not so much selling media to 'own', in the limited sense that media law permits one to, as selling access to social networks based on music. Advertising would like this quite a bit as well.
3. Sharing of music as of now, but based on location rather than proximity. At the moment I can pick up people's iTunes libraries if they are in range. What if the bar I am in allows me to buy the music being played over the PA, from my iPhone/Pod? Or allows me to pay something and share a mix or a track for others in the bar to listen to over the PA, sort of like putting money in the jukebox, or to download and listen to later, and to send me a message if they liked it? Or they could outbid me or vote to get my terrible selection off! The music industry is already getting into venues and live music, since recorded music is doing so badly. This model also resembles a whole promotional structure that the music industry is very familiar with, from the days of the earliest jukeboxes in soda fountains (they are never going back to letting jukebox manufacturers dictate terms, by the way), to present-day street teams going around barbers and bars showering the allegedly funky with promos. No doubt this concept is old hat in Japan - I do remember bring-your-ipod-to a bar nights cropping up a few years ago in the US and UK.
Anyhow, sorry for playing fantasy social network at such length: hopefully, others will pick out the bits that make sense, and those that don't. Or else it'll all happen anyway, either from the bottom-up or given to us by Apple from on high..
...Web 2.0 does not exist as such. It is just another buzzword some companies like because it allows them to sell software to executives who don't understand technology very well. It's shorthand for saying "the web application servers/tools/databases we are selling you now let you do stuff that before was more difficult with the ones we sold you a few years ago, due to X, Y, and Z technical reasons you wouldn't understand anyway, so we are calling it Web 2.0 for you".
Wow. Finally someone explained to me what the HELL this Web 2.0 stuff is. Bloody hell. Finally. Thank you. As someone who was involved in the Web 1.0 revolution
Wow. Finally someone explained to me what the HELL this Web 2.0 stuff is. Bloody hell. Finally. Thank you. As someone who was involved in the Web 1.0 revolution
A lot of it is rebranded and repackaged. RSS and "feeds" weren't the first to do what they did, they were called "push" and "channels". AJAX wasn't new, it was originally called something else, I don't remember what. I heard there was an article on where all these "Web 2.0" technologies really came from, but I still have not been able to find it. The first incarnation of many of the technologies were foisted upon us by companies like Microsoft and such, were rejected and then dropped. I think most of the second incarnation was generally redone by individuals and caught on in a grass-roots manner before marketers decided to exploit them for their own uses.
Bullshitr (beta): Web 2.0 BS generator
http://emptybottle.org/bullshit/