Facebook recently launched a new homepage layout along with some key feature changes. Namely, they’re taking down the garden walls and giving users the opportunity to network outside the website. Problem is, few of the “normal” users like it.
On the web today there’s a hip social media crowd that everyone “follows” (via Twitter and otherwise). These trend setters (visionaries?) go to all the rad modern conferences, push the limits of traditional business models, evangelize open and social content, and generally vocalize the direction the social web is (should be?) taking. Investors, executives, educators, and otherwise interested/integral people pay attention to this crowd in hopes of staying on the cutting edge.
Recently launched Facebook Connect enables regular websites to let people sign-in and network using their Facebook account. A similar service, launched around the same time, called Google Connect, does the same thing. This is an important milestone, and Facebook and Google obviously believe there’s significant business to be had by owning the service that socially-enables people’s individual blogs.
Most companies dealing in post-Web2.0 technology understand that community is commodity, and by being the platform upon which people build their community you stand a chance to become the next household name.
Prior to March ‘09, one of the criticisms of Facebook amongst the “in” crowd was that it was a walled garden. Unlike Twitter, Facebook profiles are protected and users must approve new “friends.” The interface and feature set were such that it was very easy to get up and networking in minutes. The “traditional” Facebook layout was so usable, even your mom could use. And she does! The Facebook philosophy was use your real name, and network with people you actually know. Twitter, on the other hand, lets anyone follow anyone, resulting in many one directional relationships: you may be listening to the tweets of people who aren’t hearing yours.
The original Facebook was an inspired work, which came out of the creative minds of a few very smart developers. It wasn’t a proven business case. The most recent evolution of Facebook isn’t so much a creative work but a business decision designed to change the fundamental philosophy of the site. You can now open your updates to be visible by anyone, and the homepage view is much more Twitter-like, in that the first thing you see is a stream of updates from people in your network. Indeed, Facebook now posesses the best of Twitter, FriendFeed, and most other social sites, including a huge user base made up of not only tech-forward but regular users.
The problem is, regular Facebook users don’t get the significance of this change. The old setup was just fine for their needs, and they don’t see any reason to change it. Unlike Twitter users who tend to be more social-web savvy, most Facebook users are just trying to share pictures with their family and friends. And most of them do not like the new Facebook:
So, the question now is, will Facebook continue in the direction set by the tech-forward minority, or will they build in legacy functionality to cater to the overwhelming majority who didn’t think it was broke and don’t understand why it’s being fixed.
Further Reading: The Scobleizer made a post with further/similar information: Why Facebook has never listened and why it won’t start now. And an opposing opinion over on The Guidewire Facebook Jumps the Shark.
Social Links