My only question is: how long is it going to take for this to play out? (Especially the Facebook standards v. open web standards game)

I can easily imagine it being over VERY quickly, but I don't know.

24 months until even college kids are "over" Facebook?

hey ethan,

that's a good question. these are nonlinear dynamics - when they tip, they tip fast. that depends on how great the imbalance between open + closed gets...

thx for the comment

Very, very interesting.

This is the Acid Test isn't it?

I still believe good-old-fashioned platform-warring *can* work on the YASNS-as-platforms, but only if M$ and the FB application developers know what to build. Otherwise, agreed, the whole thing will collapse ignominiously. FB and it's ecosystem are currently in a deep state of decay.

I keep going back to 1995, and the old AOL, MSN debacle. Remember when Bill Gates famously had to reverse his original call to take on the web with MSN. The reason was that openness won out. Its the same fight 12 years on.

Oh c'mmon, Umair...it's still just a rumor.

Here are the facts(or whatever is closer to fact than Furrier's post..)
Kevin Johnson's letter on MSFTs new strategy, sent out yesterday.

Scroll down his memo- numbers 1 through 4 sound like in-house work. 5 and 6 are hogwash. So's 8.

To me, 7 sounds more like the new Yahoo buzz. I would venture that Microsoft is probably trapped up in that hotel with Yahoo trying to figure out how it can tap into Yahoos publisher network, sell advertising together, and perhaps take some edge off the Google-Yahoo ad deal.
Because after these last few months of kickin' and screamin', it seems like Yahoo and Google are about to end up in bed, and Ballmer's like: "..But what about me?? I proposed first...!!"

Look at MSFT's 6 month chart. The only thing they have going for their stock is whatever happened after the first Yahoo announcements. That aside, they're way down from Jan 01, 2008.

And at any rate, if they really believe they're about to take over the world with whatever-the-bleep they're doing, why's Bill selling so many shares?

I think we all know that MSFT CORP. has peaked. This morning, they're pretty much where they were on Dec 29-2006, Nov 5-2004, Nov 22-2002, et al. Nothing's really gone too wild for them in the last 6 or so years.
And we're probably wasting precious time discussing MICROHOOFBOOKNEWSCORP+++++. We all know that addition doesn't create value. Synergy(and I don't think it exists in this case..) doesn't maximize opportunity..it only streamlines process. I can't remember the last acquisition that totally did it for the acquiring party or the (sub)merged.

So no matter WHAT goes down in Palo Alto this week, it ain't getting Microsoft anywhere. They need to forget that they have a 90%(or whatever) market position in operating systems, and remind themselves that they have a 10%(or thereabouts) market position in advertising. And if advertising is going to be their bread-and-beer(strange for a software company, but fine by me), then they need to do more than buy Yahoo, because even that puts them at 21%.

Google is ahead...wayyyy ahead...with 69%.

speaking of open-ness....how about community policing this blog? :)

The 'Microsoft buys Facebook and closes up the Web' stories by Furrier and Scoble are entirely made up. The blogosphere is just linkbaiting (including you).

The only party profiting from this spin is Google -- the enemy of privacy.

@wolke ... the definition of linkbaiting is generally understood to use a host of well known links to attract attention to your site, usually for product promotion or advertising. Is difficult to see that motivation here.

Anyhow to your point 'the enemy of privacy' ... I assume you are referring to the fact their search is the leading method of finding information online. So lets suspend judgement for a sec, and say that a brilliant combination of MS and Yahoo search produces better results, and takes over the #1 slot. Are they now the enemy of privacy?

The issue here is actually a debate on business models .. open vs closed. And it is no zero sum game either. There will always be open vs closed examples taking place, because it is human nature to hang on to that which we perceive as valuable. That is the particularly fascinating bit for me. The open model is good for people, but the closed model does drive revenue for a period of time.

Maybe the best thing that could happen here is for Scoble's prediction to play out, then we could really watch the sparks fly.

Nothing more going on here than a simple assessment of facts, and a bit of crystal ball gazing based on some knowledge of business models. Some of us will be right, some wrong, and we had some fun along the way.

"The 'Microsoft buys Facebook and closes up the Web' stories by Furrier and Scoble are entirely made up. The blogosphere is just linkbaiting (including you)."
That would be a truly genius way to crowdsource strategic advice.

Suppose we do move A: Hey public, what do you think?

"The only party profiting from this spin is Google -- the enemy of privacy."
So what kind of evil things you think Google or its partners could do to you if they knew literally everything about you (and million otehrs)? Blackmail people en mass? "Buy our product, or else." ?
I'm not against privacy perse, and don't like to see private data to be abused, but it's really hard to abuse private data in a truly profitable way.

An interesting thesis but how do you explain the success Apple has had creating a closed universe?

"How do you explain the success Apple has had creating a closed universe?"

Apple is very open to developers. They only are closed re: media formats, and that's sustainable for them because they're mediating between the old (and evil) world (record companies) and the new world (empowered music fans).

Apple is brilliant as a mediator.

Umair,
I started this response with thoughts about your headline analysis is flawed (Google/Open = Good Strategy, MicroBook/Closed = Bad Strategy).
However, after thinking about it, I think it can be restated that Microbook is eliminating an opportunity to leverage Google's dominance in search. Opening up would drive more traffic to Microbook than they could with Yahoo! search. That would drive more users+interactions within MicroBook and improve the value on those metrics.
The problem Microbook faces is that Facebook currently can't monetize their population very well. I've heard they get $0.13 CPMs, which is horrible. So I'm sure MicroBook is thinking that if they allow Google to strengthen it's position at the top of the stack (everyone starts with search), then the margins will be less. The customer-facing organization now gets more margins because the Internet automates the customer service layer and drives scalability. The content-facing part of the value chain may actually be the harder (and more expensive) part to own at scale. This may be exacerbated by the fact that Facebook has built a relatively closed system which does not allow for great UGC capabilities. FB appears to have aggregated a great population but now isn't enabling them to make next-step connections. Ditzy apps and notifications aren't going to cut it.
What is your take on how Microbook can gain an advantage with advertisers in this situation? If this played out with Microbook opening up, won't advertisers go straight to Google because they are at a higher order and Microbook would necessarily be a subset? Isn't this sort of like the friction that exists between ad agencies and television stations?
Is this really a battle about being the first stop to the Internet media experience?

Oh no.. Well, I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open for the next Facebook now. Google is by far, ahead. This new deal seems rather silly, in my eyes. It's almost like.. dare I say, a feeble attempt to climb up the mountain when Microsoft is near the bottom and Google is pretty much chilling at the top? Facebook, Flickr, and Yahoo Q&A are the only services offered by either Microsoft or Yahoo that I even bother to use. But seeing as how Facebook is a social network, something will eventually happen that may cause a shift to another social network, just as there had been not too long ago, from MySpace to Facebook.

open question: if Google would be really open: why not make public (even under certain open source licese schemes) its search alghorithms?

guys,

yes - it's just a rumour. the point of the post isn't the deal - and certainly not to linkbait (please) - but to illustrate the bigger set of dynamics at work: google/open beats microsoft/closed, whatever assets are in play.

ingmar,

that's a very good question. i think they will do it sooner than we all suspect.

meryn,

that's exactly right viz apple, very well put.

thx for the comments guys.

Is this where Napolean invades Russia in winter?

Aw,shucks, maybe it's just AOL all over again.

the atomization (as b. fuller called it) or the vaoporization, as umair uses above, of scale economics, or decentralization, (as s. brand and company called it) is a flow towards mass omniscience, where everybody can know everything ...

what we call open as per google is really quite closed compared to where things are going ...

This promotional linkbaiting incubating period sets up a classic stage to play out a virtual on-the-fly game which portends that future strategies and analysis will be more and more of a social collaboration which will depend upon open structure.

Unfortunately, in the case of MSFT and Google, I think they both are equally evil in the way they represent Homeric virtues. The incubative engineering of evil into embedded systems is parasitic and insidious and thus relies on collaborative victims who are enslaved within the borders of enforced empires. The image of an evil empire expanding through slavery does not lack a precedent!

The long and drawn out point here can be simplified to suggest that social collaboration on-the-fly and the theory of open systems is simply a fallacy, because in either case (open or closed, good or evil) there is no utopia or permeable solution that will penetrate the fabric of illusions.

By nature, these parasites are ubiquitous and inherently evil; there future relies on the ability to maintain hosts to feed off, and thus, either one of these creatures will morph into whatever shape society offers them!

In response to " This promotional linkbaiting .."- Posted by doc holiday

"One sits oppressed under a bare tree. And strays into a gloomy valley. For three years one sees nothing."

But how then, do we proceed to create something better?

Just pointing out a negative fact, true or false, not giving any positive hint of a possible way forward, is just depressing, not creating a positive force for pushing forward, just more and more people sitting in the mist in the dark wood without Hope.

This is an ongoing battle which will never end, good and evil, where you will have to constantly lift Your mind to take a step forward, or sit down and die.

And it's Your choice to Try to make The Step Good or Evil.

And I personally rather Open my mind toward the concept of Openness, than letting the evil the power of closing the path of thinking.

Re: tbl response (openness)

This morning, I was hit by the absurd concept that the Hobbit movie in production, should be somewhat altered, in that the "majority" of the characters could all have Texas accents.

Be that as it may be, that abstract absurdity triggered ideas of language connected to globalization and then thoughts on computer machine language, e.g, universal coding and the threat of social monopolies.

The example of a Texas accent, like any foreign language (or dialect) is only foreign if your an outsider, out of the loop. My point here is to think in terms of how people will transcend the boundaries of operating systems and then bypass the illusion of open or closed challenges. The logic of language is like a state of fluid dynamics -- unbounded by structure and able to transcend boundaries. However, the evolution of language is defined by those that control the language; we see that in laws that are re-written, modified, altered, disguised and designed to add additional clarifications that may influence interpretations and precedents. The same is true for computer languages that evolve and shape social interactions on-the-fly. It is thus possible for a Texan to be mobile and dynamic and to move beyond “closed” borders.

Your concern regarding negativity and the need for the creation of a positive direction points me to the word "imbricate": Having edges overlapping in a regular pattern like tiles. I see overlapping edges in the fluidity of global markets, where there is a corporate desire to push for common structures, common "tiles" common language. I think that push, goes against the common grain of individuals that are at odds in making choices between being offered more -- while simultaneously being offering less. These tiles of scale and efficiency are shaping our clone-like existence into a common collective social experience. That strikes me as evil.

Step-by-step we can each be good/evil and then morph fluid like, in and out of structures -- which can be said of corporations as well. I'm not trying to just be negative, but I think that it's absurd that Google, MSFT, Facebook, and other large corporations have such dark and evil desires to monopolize structures and systems. This burning desire is cloaked by the illusions and claims that they are the good engines driving the concepts of social collaborations -- which will result in positive outcomes. Unfortunately, I think the end result of this type of abusive monopoly is to have everyone, everywhere using the same systems and structures, and thus reducing and limiting the ways in which "we' will have opportunities to do good. Perhaps this is a paradox where the spider is caught in its own web?

I'm just beating a dead horse and making a point that one should recognize illusions and not buy into distorted corporate fantasies and then become overly dependent on subtitles that may not be accurate. In that regard, I think you have to stay on top of the language and the game and thus be in a position of strength and to not be trapped or lured into the wrong journey into darkness. This type of blog is a step-by-step process of connecting tiles, connecting information, and laying foundations for future thought, so if nothing else, maybe social monopolies will be something to feed off in a positive way? Maybe Umair is not just a computer program, but instead a good positive person that fosters positive communication? I digress...

What I find engaging is the concept that there can be a discussion here about open and closed systems and good versus evil and then the added element here of what seems to be the censoring of further posts on this topic. It is difficult to know if this is a glitch filled blog or if there is a need to limit the discussions? Either way, it makes the discussion pointless!

@grease monkey:

I'm the editor of the site, and I can assure you we don't censor the comments. We have clearly stated commenting guidelines, and we only remove posts that violate those guidelines.

That said, if you're experiencing glitches with the site, please don't hesitate to email me at the address above and I'll be happy to investigate.

Thanks!
Eric Hellweg
Editorial Managing Director
HarvardBusiness.org

I'm no expert just a guy who loves computers. I've been trying to keep track of things with Microsoft and Yahoo. I think if the deal goes down Microsoft will screw things up as usual(Vista for example). What I would really love to see is for Google to take over Netscape and produce a killer browser. Hey, just because IE comes bundled with Windows doesn't mean you have to use it. I think that would hit Microsoft below the belt. Who know's maybe even a OS by Google who knows. Just something to think about.

Thanks......