What the New Facebook Says about Web 2.0 PDF E-mail
Patrick T. Davis   
Monday, 15 September 2008

Old Facebook was charming. It was simple. It did a job nothing else had done. I liked the odd tidbit updates from friends and colleagues, the new form of autobiography, the passionate grouping of wing nuts and dilettantes alike. Mostly, I liked that it was, in its own words, “a social utility.” It was helpful, and it performed.

It also didn’t make money, and efforts to do so (like the much ballyhooed and booed Beacon bombshell) fell short. Along came Microsoft with a huge infusion of cash and, it seems, clunky PC-world inefficiency and “more is better” ideology. Who has better models of things we don’t need than the goons in Redmond? (See all editions of Word post 1995; see Vista; see increasing conversions to Apple).
 
So now we have the “New Facebook.” A fix without a problem. A mousetrap with no rodent. And, I would suggest, a business model without a business.

Why do we have it? Because the new (dys)functionality creates new real estate to sell. The New Facebook takes and breaks what was simple, elegant and useful and replaces it with a variety of tabs that hide, disassemble and confuse the carefully crafted narratives and preferences that millions and millions of users chose with purpose. There is about 400 percent more advertising space on the New Facebook. Um, yay? Did we want that?

Can Facebook track user experience in a more precise way now? Yes. Can they gather more precise data? Yes. Can they target more precise ads? Yes. That would be awesome, if they wanted to become the next AOL, stellar example of Web savvy it is.

Can they keep a user base now that they have erased the utilitarian efficiency and quaintness of Facebook? I doubt it. This suggests very bad things for other “Web 2.0” efforts. The key to success will not be changing the product to get the sale, but to get the sale with the product people want. Facebook has just forced a massive bait and switch on its user base. We signed up for one thing; now we get another. It is a very good thing Facebook doesn’t charge for its “utility.”

If you think that these types of design changes don’t have a big impact on businesses, growth or valuation, please go take a peek at Google’s unadulterated, unchanged, utilitarian interface. Then click on over to the mess that is now Yahoo — in terms of design, business and board in-fighting. Or, see the fairly high and stable prices on Macs, compared to the falling prices at Dell. Simplicity matters. The marketplace despises confusion, and Facebook has dealt up a big plate of it.

Good luck, Facebook. I’d post a message there if it were still easy to do so.


Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Newsvine!

Comments (11)Add Comment
Facebook really is lost...
written by Randy Walton, September 15, 2008 06:03 PM
Thanks for a "spot on" analysis of Facebook attempting what has vexed so many others, monetizing the presence of many eyes without any exchange of value for the viewer. I'm quite ready to give up on it already.
Talk about spot-on
written by Patrick, September 15, 2008 06:11 PM
Randy - You are absolutely right, and I should have made this point in my post. The move from pure, Google-like utility is so frustrating because Facebook diminishes the value for the viewer. We get less, while they try to monetize more. Thanks for reading.
it's free...you know?
written by tktm, September 16, 2008 01:17 PM
Not sure it says as much about web 2.0 as it does about the assumption that everything on the web must be gratis...here's the bottom line - you didn't pay for it. You don't like it, vote with your feet. The alternative is buy a better experience.
Why does everyone think that these services and utilities should be both free and answerable to them? That's not a value exchange - it's just a deal that works well for the consumer.
I don't fault them for trying to find some value for themselves - doesn't mean I like their solution. If you say it's not broke, don't fix it - you are ignoring their perspective. From their point of view (and their investors) it IS broken.
Conversations and relationships work both ways. Web 2.0 sometimes forgets.
wait...
written by kg, September 16, 2008 10:25 PM
i agree with Patrick - free or not free - it stinks!
uh oh
written by Farting Jim, September 19, 2008 07:11 AM
....brrrrraaaaappppp!...
Government Philosophy
written by FurnaceATL, September 19, 2008 09:24 AM
I agree that the old Facebook was easy to use and was functioning just fine. Not a problem. However it seems as though Facebook took the government philosophy to "fixing" their "problem": If it ain't broke, fix it til' it is!
I didn't know Microsoft was behind the change
written by RedHeadedWonder, September 21, 2008 10:58 PM
But now it all makes perfect sense. Navigating the tabs on the new facebook, I experienced the same frustration as when I used the new version of Microsoft Word. Microsoft is trying out new interfaces to compete with Apple, but they are completely missing the point: with Apple, it's not just about looking pretty, but about designs that actually enhance the experience for the user. The new facebook accomplishes neither of these tasks.
I have to be smarter than this new design
written by Holly, September 22, 2008 02:53 PM
I have tried for three days to figure out how to respond to a message on my wall and can't. Damn you, Facebook. And your little dog, too!
holly tells the truth
written by JoseMocha, September 22, 2008 03:45 PM
JoseMocha no long takes his cup of hot steaming love to Facebook for the same reason. He cannot find where to post or respond to anything. They truly ruined it. A hex on them!
Si, JoseMocha. Si!
written by Hector, September 22, 2008 04:22 PM
Yes, please put the hex on them. I need a break.
new facebook stinks
written by rose, October 25, 2008 01:31 AM
sooooooooooo slowwwwwwwww

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote

busy