Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet

Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases 137

shadowmage13 writes "Google just announced that starting tonight, developers can start writing applications using the social API for Orkut, MySpace, Engage.com, Friendster, hi5, Hyves, imeem, LinkedIn, Ning, Oracle, Plaxo, Salesforce.com, Six Apart, Tianji, Viadeo, and XING at http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial. Will Facebook give in?" There is quite a bit of analysis of this announcement available in yesterday's discussion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases

Comments Filter:
  • by rukidding ( 931503 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @06:32PM (#21219291)
    So now even Google is jumping into this whole web 2.0 thing?
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In Soviet Russia, Web 2.0 jumps you!
    • /me wonders why you're surprised when Google created GMail and all...
      • it was a joke ;)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pazy ( 1169639 )
        Why be suprised at google, they will be opening there own coffee shop franchise soon. Maybe fund a few space flights. They could do anything and I wouldent even blink anymore lol
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by owlnation ( 858981 )
          Yes, and sadly the one thing they seem not to be doing, is the one thing they should be doing -- developing the next gen of search. We are still a long long way away from adequate search.
          • by Pazy ( 1169639 )
            Well I read an article (most likely on slashdots, its got everything) about how the third generation of search is already underway at least in the preliminery stages. Even if google's search goes under they got that much stuff to fall back on you know they will never die.
          • "Adequate search" as You name it would require semantic understanding
            of the content.

            By now, all aproaches of "semantic web" depend on a fair classification
            of content by the owner of the content.

            Currently, Google is continuously fighting against page rank
            manipulations. Inventing something that depends on fairness would
            render the search engine useless.
      • Uhh, what has GMail to do with Web 2.0 beyond AJAX? Is Outlook Web Access (where XmlHttpRequest came from, after all) Web 2.0, too?

        Or do we only allow "cool" companies that moniker?

        • by Fred_A ( 10934 )

          Is Outlook Web Access (where XmlHttpRequest came from, after all) Web 2.0, too?
          It could be... Is it in Beta ?
          Has to be Beta to be Web 2.0.

          OTOH since it's from Microsoft one could argue that it's by definition perpetually in Beta ("Hey, it compiles ! Ship it !" - MS dev team Mgr)
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by MLCT ( 1148749 )
      Didn't Google help define the idea of 2.0? Gmail (which was much more than any other webmail when it launched), Ajax, Google Documents, ....
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

      So now even Google is jumping into this whole web 2.0 thing?

      Not now at all. Orkut is Google, and it's social networking, and social networking is by definition "Web 2.0". So no, not just now.

      Besides, the only thing wrong about Web 2.0 is the term 'Web 2.0'.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )
      I've already given up. The internet is just turning into one giant party phone. Like the chat lines they used to advertise in the middle of the night in the late 1980s. If you can cash in on that sad state of affairs, I guess you might as well. Can't blame any company that does. Perhaps some day that will fade away and the internet will become something slightly less sophomoric and navel-gazing. Yes, part of the internet still serves a purpose other than trying to score with teenage girls and watching the v
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

        Yes, part of the internet still serves a purpose other than trying to score with teenage girls and watching the video at 2girls1cup.com, but not much.

        Thanks for the link! ;-)

        • I actually did check that link out.

          Its worse than goatce! :-(
          • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I agree. Don't post that fucking garbage without some kind of warning. I actually started watching it with my wife, thinking it would be something funny, or at least girl-on-girl action. But no. It was some chick shitting in a cup.

            Get a fucking life.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              In the future, you could use this as a painful lesson that sometimes Google is a great source of information on the random link posted by an unknown person. I speak from experience as one who has been burned in a similar manner.

              A Google search for the domain name reveals a warning that even I won't ignore.

              Digg - Funny reaction to 2Girls1Cup
              Warning: DO NOT visit 2girls1cup.com to see what they are watching. Seriously. Don't. Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen. ...
            • by kv9 ( 697238 )

              I actually started watching it with my wife, thinking it would be something funny, or at least girl-on-girl action. But no. It was some chick shitting in a cup. Get a fucking life.
              ooh, did she ground you?
        • No, do NOT thank him for the link. Moreover, unless you're into fecaleating, I recommend you do not click on it or at the very least do not watch past the first 2-3 seconds. It look good to start... but I really must remember *not* to click on links from slashdot posts.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

            Nah, this thing is fake to a certain extent. I've never seen human poop looking like that, they probably stuffed some brown stuff up their bottom and "crapped" it.

        • by chooks ( 71012 )
          Argh!!! Ze goggles! Zey do nussing!!!!
    • by cshark ( 673578 )

      So now even Google is jumping into this whole web 2.0 thing?

      Dude, google started this whole web 2.0 "thing" as you put it.

  • Really? I count two, three if you include google. And "different from myspace" has been one of facebook's main attractions. This won't put any pressure on facebook.
    • by Pazy ( 1169639 )
      Im in the same boat, I recognise the main ones but no more. I gave up on social networking a long time ago and stopped keeping track of it.
    • by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @06:49PM (#21219515) Homepage
      I'm not sure which two you mean? Myspace - 100 million accounts Livejournal - 14 million accounts Orkut - 67 million accounts Firendster - 50 million accounts LinkedIn - 15 million accounts Salesforce.com - 1 million subscribers Tianji - 700,000 members For context, Wikipedia reports that Facebook has 42 million accounts as of October 2007. Now there's certainly some variation, and probably lots of duplication amongst accounts, but seriously, these are big sites, with huge traffic figures. TO dismiss it as one or two and the rest you've never heard seems a tad petulant.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iluvcapra ( 782887 )

        I think I have a friendster account, I made it in 2005 when all the pretty young things in Hollywood were using it for their "social" (sing. n.). I haven't used it since the week I made it, I doubt I could even log into it now (everybody went to myspace after about a month, and then to facebook, and nobody ever checks their page anyways). I suspect the number of accounts many social networking sites report come with the same caveat. I think the real question is "How many logins have at least one access per

      • I didn't see LiveJournal in the summary or the article. Did I miss it, somehow? I did a search on the page after reading this post and still couldn't find it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by SEE ( 7681 )
          Six Apart is the parent company of LiveJournal, just like Google is the parent company of Orkut and News Corp. is the parent company of MySpace. Now, whether Six Apart's participation means LiveJournal participation . . .
      • by tyrione ( 134248 )
        Give me a break. The 100 Million MySpace counts can be carved down to 10 to 15 million REAL ACCOUNTS. That site is a horde of spam sites and useless trash covered in fake accounts left and right trying to pawn off some useless crap that makes the QVC channel seem cool.
        • I know you are joking, but I did a data analysis last year of the Myspace network. Most "spam" accounts have over 200 freinds, and my data showed that only 5% of accounts fit that description(and most of those accounts belong to hyperactive teenage girls).

          Myspace spam is not prevalent enough to skew statistics.

    • Really? I count two, three if you include google.

      So, yeah, there's only a handful already committed to OpenSocial before the SPI docs are released, and most aren't household names. But they've got 200 million user accounts between them, the largest of them alone has around 100 million. Facebook has how many? 40 million or so?

      And once the SPI docs are released, since "it is possible to use data from another social network [google.com]", it will be possible for sites with lots of users that aren't primarily social netwo

    • Facebook vs Google (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mfh ( 56 )
      Google is uniting these other sites because they each have something to gain from that alliance... new segments.

      Facebook has nothing to gain because people from each of those segments are already on Facebook.

      Facebook only has something to lose by joining that alliance... control over how their medium is dished up and the browser interstitials and advertisement revenue. My dollar is on Facebook for the long haul, unless they are shut down due to code theft (which is actually still in limbo right now, if I un
    • *I* have some ideas that might put pressure on Phonebook... Umm, Facebook:

      See my:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=345637&cid=21185939 [slashdot.org]

      But, the gist is:

      "What the thing might have or should have -- and this will hurt feelings -- is a measurement to show relationship (whatever kind it is) based on communication instances, volume, and more. Obviously, this means reading email between senders. I would not say go as far as posting the content.

      Some, but not all, communicate regularly. Some fewer communicate
      • Sounds interesting, but where would you get your usage data from? In my experience, the poking and wall writing is just a form of courtship and flirting, translated as quickly as possible to something else.

        I know that I don't communicate with my closest friends through facebook, I either use IM or email. Assuming that Google could wrestle that data from AOL(since no one uses google talk), and integrates it with facebook, then the feature would be worth something.

      • Suddenly, it's no longer gospel who your TOP x-number of friends are. The volume, density/depth, duration, constancy, and such of your communications will determine publicly or privately who your REAL best friends are.

        Sorry, but this is a very silly idea. Friendship is related to the depth of communication, not the amount of data exchanged. And e-messaging is only a small part of communication.

        If I don't e-message somebody much, it might be because I actually spend time with them because they are a go

        • Yeh, but here ARE friends we make before or after meeting on line. Some move, some are just too busy with school, work, family... and find time to communicate thru the Internet(s)... True, my idea (which I now know is NOT original or groundbreaking) will fail in cases where people still use snail mail, or have intensely strong feelings for each other even if they only communicate twice a year. But, as for the communications of listed/disclosed friends, the tool might be useful

          Friend Wheel is one I tried on
  • by The Clockwork Troll ( 655321 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @06:39PM (#21219379) Journal
    Premier applications launching on the platform include "GlobalPoke", "iReallyReallyReallyLike", and the sure-to-entertain "Biggest Fucking Super Duper Wall Ever"
  • Again, no! (Score:2, Insightful)

    What is it with Slashdot headlines and the idea that "release" is an intransitive verb such that "X releases" means approximately the same thing as "X became available"?

    "Release" is a transitive verb. The subject is the thing letting something out, the object is the thing let out. "Google's OpenSocial Platform Releases", no, sorry, if you say that, you need to say what it is that Google's OpenSocial platform releases. "Google Releases OpenSocial Platform", yes.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      They're using it as a noun (in the plural), not a verb.
      • I just thought, as I looked at the title again... "Hmmm, could be the submitter simply hit 's' vice 'd' on the keyboard." Could be a simple typo...
    • by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @07:43PM (#21219983) Homepage Journal
      It is NOT unpossible, becuase it is not irreleaseble...
    • I agree but it's also a noun, last time I checked.

      So maybe the headline refers, skeptically, to multiple releases in the pipeline to tackle the behemoth that is Facebook! :)
    • Yes, but English -- unlike, say Latin -- is a *living* language. It is dynamic and fluid; old words become replaced with new, new words are invented as needed, and even the usage of words changes over time. Ten years ago, "Google" was a proper noun (and a rather obscure one, at that). Now, it is both a proper noun ("Google" the corporation, "google.com" the web page) and a verb (to "google" something or someone; i.e., to search on-line for information, often by usi
      • by SEE ( 7681 )
        No, it's not short-sighted. I assure you, some day my army of enforcement robots will impose my vision of the English language upon you all!
    • "Releases" could also be a typo of "Released" making it "Google's OpenSocial Platform Released" - past tense
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      You're right :) It was actually just a typo-- i actually meant to say "Google's OpenSocial Platform Released"
  • by duerra ( 684053 ) * on Friday November 02, 2007 @06:48PM (#21219491) Homepage
    Sure, Google released documentation for how to write these kinds of apps, but they have yet to release any documentation for sites looking to implement the APIs. This kinda limits its proliferation. I work for a fairly large social network, and thus far we have not been able to even get started on writing an implementation OpenSocial yet.
  • Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @06:51PM (#21219537)

    Will Facebook give in?

    No.

    Time and history has shown us that when you're number 1, you don't give in until you absolutely have to - because you don't need to.

    That time has not yet come...

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)

      by owlnation ( 858981 ) on Friday November 02, 2007 @07:17PM (#21219767)
      Yes. But they aren't currently number one. And they most certainly won't be after the others network together. But thanks for playing anyway...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by yashinka ( 891973 )
        Perhaps they don't have the most accounts, but with the huge amount of fake accounts on MySpace, that figure is meaningless. I, like many people I know, have accounts on MySpace, Friendster and maybe a few others, but I only log in when I have friend requests.

        Facebook has the best UI and it already has tons of great apps. Until those apps move and all my friends move and users start changing back, I don't think Facebook has anything to worry about. Facebook has the most used photo app and events app o
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          If you add "in the US" to every sentence you wrote, then, you'd be accurate.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        The point of this exercise isn't audience size. No other social networking site has the API buzz that Facebook has created, nor the number of deployed applications.

        So the answer "no", Facebook won't give in. Maybe when they start losing market share, but not now. Actually, this looks more like an act of desperation from the other social networking sites to catch up. When competitors join up against a common foe, it says a lot about the strength of that foe.

    • Myspace has twice as many accounts. Or did you mean first to have an API? Well, that's true, but they don't have years of being ahead of the game there, and on top of that, we're talking about an open API from Google. ... !
    • Myspace is the #1 website on the planet, and has more hits than either Yahoo or Google.

      So I don't see how Facebook is supposedly the #1 social networking site in your book.

      Either way, I don't really care for any of them.
      • by c_forq ( 924234 )
        Just because Ford may sell more cars than any other auto maker in the world does not make them the best, and it most certainly doesn't mean Ferrari should submit to standards that may hurt their performance edge.
        • We aren't talking about the "best". We're talking about a market leader not having to pander to those trying to catch up to it.
          • by c_forq ( 924234 )
            The GGP simply stated Facebook was number one. He didn't specify in what regard. Saying something is number one is often used to describe quality in America.
            • #1 in quality doesn't equate directly to success. His point was that someone who is #1 doesn't have to change to match other people. Market share is more important than quality in terms of flexibility to do your own thing. Using his car analogy, the Toyota Supra was hailed as perhaps the best sports car of its time, but it wasn't as popular, or cheap, or successful as the competition, so it died out. It no longer exists, where as the Camaro, Corvette, Mustang, etc. still exist today. Again, if his poin
      • MySpace may be the #1 website by traffic, but not by money-making eyeballs. MySpace's largest demographic is tweens and younger. Facebook's is High School to College and older. Guess which demographic spends more money?

    • by tgd ( 2822 )
      And yet #1 did give in.

      So much for that theory.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Dear Facebook,

    It's Cloberin' Time!

    Yours truly,
    The G-Unit Commandos.
  • Consolidation Phase (Score:2, Interesting)

    by broward ( 416376 )
    Social networking is peaking in growth, ergo it's entering a consolidation phase. Google's OpenSocial APi release is a brilliant counter-strategy (for once). FaceBook's API was a good gamble into a peaking market but I think Google has outdone them.

    My prediction on FaceBook's growth rate BEFORE the Google OpenSocial API release.

    http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=social_networking_meme [realmeme.com]
    • by burris ( 122191 )
      You're nuts if you think social networking on the 'net is peaking. It has barely gotten started. Eventually, it will be as ubiquitous as personal phone numbers.

  • Would Microsoft be happy with this? After all they're sworn enemies of Google. Remember Microsoft has invested in Facebook, how much control/influence does it have on the company?
    • I think it's something like one and a half percent. Hardly enough to make any sort of difference.
    • give in to what? Why wouldn't they want to add it? They are not telling them they have to replace the existing API (M$'s style), they are simply requesting that they add support for it. I doubt they would lose users by not supporting it though. Devs will just make separate Facebook versions(ripoffs) of the applications for use exclusively on facebook
  • Australia gets screwed over again. Even New Zealand got ONE localised MySpace site and Austria got TWO!!!
  • Load of Crap (Score:2, Insightful)

    by z-j-y ( 1056250 )
    It's Friday evening, and I don't have any friend, real or virtual. So I actually watched that retarded video. (highly recommended for a good laugh)

    All it is supposed to be, is so that you can write some stupid client side gadget, and you gadget can be run on every participating websites. BFD.

    Each site is still an isolated island. You gadget doesn't run across sites, it only runs on every sites. It is not for sharing anything or interacting with anybody among different sites.

    I've assumed that OpenSocial is a
    • by jo42 ( 227475 )
      Google is trying to get a cut of the action in hopes that someday, someway, they will make $$$$$$$$$ off of it.
  • by crf00 ( 1048098 )
    Authenticating to the OpenSocial People service

    You can access both public and private feeds using the OpenSocial People data API. Public feeds don't require any authentication, but they are read-only. If you want to view Friends then your client needs to authenticate before requesting private feeds. It can authenticate using either of two approaches: ClientLogin username/password authentication or AuthSub proxy authentication.

    How could I authenticate myself into other social websites like Friendster t

  • in the same api/environment ? oh bugger off !!!

    any api/environment that has myspace in it caters to, well, myspace crowd ( good lord there is no other way to put it). i wouldnt think any average user of facebook would like to ( god forbid) mingle with myspacers in an environment, regardless of the api.
  • Total non-feature (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd.bandrowsky@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday November 02, 2007 @11:10PM (#21221267) Homepage Journal
    While I'm sure that there are some people that like to have their networking links travel from place to place, I think this is a feature that is really designed to benefit on-line marketers more than end users. Developers that write for these APIs, are really sort of fools, because ultimately, they are giving away to Google and others information that they should really actually -pay for-. If I were lucky enough to put some social site together with millions of hits, the last thing I'd want to would be to give away all of my behavior information to Google. If they want it, then they can write me a fricking check.

    MY CUSTOMERS! MINE, MINE, MINE!
  • With so much brouhaha about social networking, Web 2.0, networking analytics, etc. that the internet is spewing, I wonder where this is all leading to from a corporate intranet perspective. Am sure even if the CIO (or which ever CXO is responsible for IT & security) is not ready to open up these sites in his/her corporate network (by putting up site blockers, etc.), employees will find out a way to bring them in. So is it not prudent for the CIO to include social networking in the IT strategy of the org

  • Not until MySpace solves their spam problem.
  • I first heard about this yesterday, and went "Oh cool, so Google's finally implementing OpenID. Maybe they'll do for that what they did for Jabber."

    You see, Google Talk is a Jabber IM service. That means that while the Google Talk client itself probably only works with Google, you can, in fact, talk to anyone, on any domain, on any Jabber server, from your Google Talk account, and vice versa. It's IM, but with the decentralization, flexibility, and possibility of competition that you find in email.

    Well, Ope
  • smells like web3.0 is looming in the air.

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison

Working...