We launched Fight For The Top about two and a half months ago (one third of the time, I've been on top), and it's turned into a fun little Facebook Application. Like all our products thus far, it grew to where it is organically. No ads, marketing or publicity.

Today that changes. We asked ESPN's ad group to create a banner ad for it, and the ad went into rotation today on ESPN.com.

Let's hope it brings in some new challengers.

MySpace will launch its Data Availability later today (see here and here), beating Google and Facebook to the punch.

Unfortunately all three will be pretty much useless to us.

First, there are legal issues with sharing data, which I wrote about previously.

But that's not the biggest problem. None of these services will allow you to store anything beyond simple ids (no social graph, photos, etc). In MySpace's case, a developer can't even cache this data.

So every time we render a page, we'd be calling out to MySpace. The performance implications of doing this would relegate potential asewome data to a buried link, like "See my MySpace data". Vomit.

Let me know when we can sync. That's what data portability really is. I want to be able to upload a photo, add a friend, remove a friend, write a comment or change my first name, and have it appeaer across all my social networks. I want to see relationships. What team is most popular among MySpace users? Between MySpace and Facebook users, who is more accurate at picking scores and winners?

Sure, this may be a boon for sites that don't have any compelling user data of there own and get virtually no traffic, but those sites aren't relevant anyway.

Until we can sync data across social networks, all this "Data Portability" is just PR.

As I was writing my last post about the arms race between the client and the server, a thought crossed my mind.

Why has the social networking arms race come down to Facebook and Google?

Facebook is #2 in the social networking space and Google is #I-don't-care. Why? Because Google doesn't have a viable social network.

Don't bother with Gmail, YouTube or Okurt.

Okurt isn't in the same league as Facebook. Just trust me on this.

Gmail, YouTube and whatever other Google properties aren't social networking sites. Just don't try to make that argument.

That's like saying Hotmail, the LA Times or Amazon is a social network. Stop it.

So then I read the Cold War comparison( more here ), and I realized it was very exaggerated and not really true, but made for an interesting headline and topic. (Well played, Duncan, well played).

So Google is trying to tip the dominoes. With the release of OpenSocial and FriendConnect, Google is trying to get other countries, er, ah, sites to join them and thrust itself into the social networking scene. As more fall, more will be more likely to fall, or something to that effect.

The problem is, Google is shooting blanks, and Facebook is still firing back, playing right into Google's hands.

Google opens. Facebook opens some more. Google opens even more. Facebook... you get the point.

The difference is, people actually care about, and can build applications around Facebook's openness.

It's like poker, but not. Google is getting Facebook to go all in, but Google is playing with house money. Why should they care if they lose?

On the other hand, if Google can accumulate second-tier sites and entice Facebook into blowing open it's doors, there is an open conduit from Facebook to thousands of other sites, and that conduit is Google.

If I were Facebook, I'd call Google's bluff before I lose the only thing valuable I have.

So TechCrunch confirmed that Facebook will be turning their application framework into an open-source project, meaning that pretty soon, anyone who wants will be able to host Facebook Apps on their own site.

The details are still scant at this point in terms of what features will be available and how it could/should/would be implemented.

But I'm guessing it's going to be pretty much exactly like OpenSocial.

With one rather enormous exception.

Facebook Apps rely on server components. To make Facebook Apps stupidly simple. A Facebook server makes a request to your server, your server returns markup and wawmo, you have a Facebook App. What you want your server to run is up to you. The Official (cue the Choir and sunrise) API is implemented in PHP, but has been ported to ActionScript, Ruby, Java, blah, da, blah, blah, blah.

OpenSocial requires no servers -- aside from the one(s) acting as the host/shell/container/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. So, in theory, and I guess, in practice, you could build an entire OpenSocial app with no server, relying completely on client-side Javascript. And really that's your only option.

Now, pros and cons aside, many have wondered whether Javascript is the wave of the Web X.0 future because of it's ubiquitous nature and nearly absolute install base.

If OpenSocial with its client-side glory comes out on top, it would go a long way in proving that is true.

The blogs plunged from euphoric to despondent over the last 48 hours as MySpace, Facebook and Google all announced some sort of outside-the-wall sharing of their social graph data. See Here, Here and Here for a sample.

The tenor began to change as more information became available, hitting a low point with Facebook's blocking of Google's Friend Connect. See Here, Here and Here for a sample.

Is this news really surprising to people?

As a social networking fan and advocacy of openness, I say "that's garbage."

As an employee for a large company and an MBA student, I say "duh."

The first big issue with this initiative is Personal Identifiable Information. What PII data actually is varies, but is generally, first name, last name, email address, etc. Anything that could be used to identify the real "you".

PII is a really dicey issue in big companies, so much so that we have problems just transferring it from one server we control to another. Forget about trying to share it with, well, anyone.

Secondly, the incentives for the consumer is obvious, but what is the incentive for the business units?

OK, maybe Google is more willing to share their users info because this doesn't represent its core competency. Same with MySpace (owned by Fox). For these BUs, the publicity and potential attraction they get might be worth it (although, I still don't see it).

But what about Facebook? Facebook's sole business is its users and users' information. Why would it want to just give its business away to its competitors.

Sure, I'd love to have my Facebook friends in my Gmail address book and vice-versa, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon or ever.

And I get that.

What a fantastic day at the Web 2.0 Conference (and Expo) in San Francisco. It was really fun being surrounded by so many people, most of whom are doing such interesting things using (mostly) such cutting edge techniques and technologies. Today was a very fun and engaging day that covered a wide swath of the Web 2.0 landscape.

My first session was with Jia Shen of RockYou. He talked about how his company approaches Facebook application development. A lot of his points were quite useful. He highlighted the need for rapid development so your product and brand don't get stale. He likes telling the story about how SuperWall was developed in a weekend - started Saturday morning, launched Sunday at 3 am! He highlighted the need for brainstorming and coming up with fun, creative apps that will engage their existing user base (which is surprisingly 60% women) while attracting new Facebook users to sign up. One of his major points was that one's approach to app development should be from an advertising and marketing viewpoint. He promoted A/B testing as a good way to figure out the optimal flow for the install process since that's when the majority of potential users get lost. Overall it was a really fun talk about a very interesting topic.

Next I attended a session that was more philosophy than tutorial but was pretty cool just the same. Joseph Smarr of Plaxo touched on the very important topic of Data Portability. In a nutshell, he's basically concerned with the fact that a user isn't able to define him/herself in one place and have that information show up everywhere. For example, I love The Magnetic Fields. I love them everywhere, all the time. But despite this, I'm sure every site on which I have an account doesn't list them in my favorite artists section. Wouldn't it be neat to define my favorite artists in one spot and have that show up everywhere? Or another example. I'm friends with Jorge. I'm friends with Jorge everywhere. But I'm sure there's a site we're both on but don't realize we're both on and therefore aren't friends (probably eons.com). Why can't I store friends information in one centralized spot? If you stop and think about it, it's actually a really cool idea. I friend you on Facebook. It updates my account. That information gets pushed everywhere else, and if you're anywhere else we're friends there too, automagically! I think this is (or should be) the direction that Google is headed with its OpenSocial platform. But the clear question is, what's in it for the sites? If I can get all my Orkut contacts on MySpace - whose site I absolutely love - why would I ever go to Orkut? This was a question I posed and he had a very interesting response. Imagine I can take my LinkedIn contacts everywhere. Wouldn't I spend that much more time on LinkedIn solidifying my contacts since I knew if I did it there I wouldn't have to do it again anywhere else? Same goes for finding friends taggings on ma.gnolia or tweets on twitter. The logic isn't foolproof - sites that don't have any particular niche become sorta useless - but it's the first real argument I've heard for sharing data. Cool talk.

At 1:30 I sat in on a tea party with 3 panelists who talked about nothing. That was frustrating so I left after 20 minutes and caught the end of what seemed to be a pretty neat talk about JavaScript hijacking. All I really caught was the conclusion which detailed how only a few of the JS Frameworks actually implement protection for it and how we as developers can protect against it server-side. But from what I saw it looked like a really good topic to go more in depth with from both a curiosity and actual security perspective.

The final session of my day was entitles "Design your API" and was presented by two Twitter guys (who assure me they're getting paid). Actually one officially works for Twitter and one was brought in to help build the Twitter API. Twitter delivers an astounding 80% of its traffic through its API. Which means this thing is getting hammered. Which means it needs to be done right. There were several key features of effective APIs that they highlighted including:

• Have a dedicated subdomain for your API and implement caching immediately
• Version the API from the get-go
• Make life easy for Flash developers, i.e. pass back skinny XML and not heavy RSS
• Help your developer community as much as possible and listen to their feedback
• Make it secure
• Make it RESTful
• Make it awesome

Then there were the keynotes. O'Reilly got people all O'riled up and read a 50-line Rilke poem (which was not part of the O'riling). Max Levchin (dude who created PayPal and Slide) basically told us to, in the words of Winston Churchill, "never surrender." I think Churchill was actually talking about Internet startups too when he said that. Can't remember. Amit Mital from Microsoft showcased their newest product "Microsoft Mesh". This new product basically syncs files across any number of devices and greatly eases the ability to share files with others. I feel like there's going to be a fair amount of overhead to learn how to actually use the system for the average user - Microsoft has a pretty spotty history in terms of designing for the computer-savvy. I know, for example, that no member of my family would be able to figure out what he was showing in his video. (Paraphrasing) "You open up the mesh, attach your devices or link to them via your network, open up your target folder, and drag and drop files you want to add to your mesh. Files you want to share can be dragged to your shared mesh, etc etc." My Mom and Dad would be mouth agape after "You open up the mesh"... It's just too complicated. Not to mention it only works with Microsoft products, though they claim Mac support is coming. So we'll see how useful it actually turns out to be. It's an okay idea though. Steve Gillmor likes it: Microsoft Says Yes With Mesh

Clay Shirky's keynote "Here comes everybody" was the most interesting thing I'd heard all conference. He set the stage by taking us back to the early-to-mid 19th century. Streets of London. Gin carts (carts!) are being pushed up and down the streets, the salesmen pedaling their wares to keep an entire generation inebriated and useless. Similar alcoholic binges were occurring en masse, all over the world. Then the human race sobered up and actually started doing stuff. And we get the period in world history known as the Industrial Revolution. Now it's his premise that we are coming out of a similar period of cognitive suppression. And what, pray tell, does he believe to be our drink of choice? Wait for it. Sitcoms. TV! How many hours of TV do we watch as a nation, or worldwide even?? He threw numbers out (which I can't completely remember) but they were in the tens of billions of hours. One overall number was in the trillions. Needless to say, and anyone could've told you this, we watch a lot of TV. But what's happened over the past couple years? People have been turning away from the tube and turning towards the web. Now instead of watching reruns, people are editing Wikipedia articles. Or even if they're not doing something that cognitively engaging, if they're just editing their 1,000th LOLCat, at least they're engaging their brains in some fashion. He told a funny anecdote about his friend's kid watching a movie. At some point she got up and walked behind the television set and started rooting around in the wires. "What are you looking for?" his friend asked. "The mouse," she replied. We now expect our media to be engaging. We are coming out of the decades-long stupor produced largely by mindless TV and are starting to participate in a worldwide movement of creativity and collaboration. Typing it all out, it is pretty exciting to be a part of.

In Conclusion,

The revolution will not be televised...

The 2008 Web 2.0 Conference (and Expo) got off to a raucous start today. This morning I participated in a workshop (emphasis on the "shop") covering Facebook and opensocial application development. While extremely disappointing in its basicity (a word which I am coining to mean "When a group of people watch some girl click around her MySpace profile to show where you can put really neat widgets"), the latter half of the workshop did semi-touch on important concepts concerning how one should develop in this rapidly changing social network application development environment. I wish the entire 3 hours had been spent developing a working application from scratch, though, even if it had just been a dumb "Hello World" app that says "Hello World" to your friends. Then they could've discussed specific issues encountered with working with Facebook and OpenSocial. How you deal with the differing implementations in the OpenSocial containers. The best way to update and maintain your code to work on the various sites. That's stuff I would've liked to learn about. But if anything it provided a few scraps for thought about OpenSocial coding.

In the afternoon I sat in on a pretty interesting talk about "Innovating on Time" (which may or may not be the official title, but close enough). This topic is something I'd like to go more in depth with at a later point when I've had the opportunity to read a little more and collect my thoughts, but the premise that someone or some group should allot time in their schedules for the simple act of idea creation - or "ideating" - is pretty interesting to me. And while this was the primary focus of the first half of the workshop (there was a 15 minute break for snacks which were nowhere to be found...sob), the second half of the workshop focused on the issue of how you act on these ideas in a timely manner. The presenter, Scott Berkun, brought up several key issues and roadblocks we all face when trying to complete a project - be it innovative or not. At one point he started presenting a series of charts and was throwing around "quantities of work-time" and calculus-based derivative explanations of how projects finish in a hyperbolic fashion. It got a little goofy. But the last 10 minutes of wrap-up definitely left some good messages in terms of how one (or, again, one group) should focus on developing innovative products in an efficient and timely manner.

Early-to-late evening after the conference is mostly a vague wash of various scary homeless people harassing me.

In conclusion,

Web 2.0 FTW

Fight For The Top Ain't Yet Another Facecebook Application Where You Pick Winners.

It's so much better than that. And we launched it yesterday. For more information, check out Dary's post about it.

Today marks the completion of our most recent, month-long Facebook project "Fight for the Top". The game itself is quite ingenious. While the notion of a pick 'em style game isn't new, the notion of a punishing pick 'em style game is (to me at least). The basic premise of the game is "Don't guess wrong", because if you do your entire streak is reset. Imagine if this game had been out for the past couple years. You'd built a streak of say 423 games right in-a-row by picking only majorly major favorites. You look at the matchups for opening weekend College Football last September. "Michigan at home vs App St.? Please. No brainer." And on Sunday you're on par with Gene Parmesan who just signed up 15 minutes ago. That's the beauty of the game. It is ruthless. So pick all the 1s vs 16s in the first round of next year's March Madness. I dare you. One year that pick is gonna break your heart.

And speaking of streaks, after watching video of the 03/04 Arsenal squad, "The Invincibles", who went undefeated in 49 straight games, I wish I'd gotten into soccer earlier. I've played my entire life, but it was never on TV save for the World Cup and (ahem) the MLS. But watching highlights of that squad - the artistry of Henry, the brilliance of Pires, the wall-like nature of Lehmann - it was like nothing I've ever seen. They were just so FAST! And wildly inventive. Try and track down a highlight from the first game of that 03/04 season against Southampton and watch Pires' 3rd goal of that match. About 5 yards outside the box a deflection is coming to him. He sneaks a peek at the keeper and sees he's maybe 6 or 7 yards off the line. So of course he one-times a 20-yard chip over the keeper's outstretched arms into the back of the net. Such a ridiculous goal. Pires in his prime was one of the all-time greats.

Keep an eye out for Fight for the Top early next week!

In conclusion,

FIGHT FOR THE TOP!

FIGHT!