The Children’s Hour: Facebook Apps Are for Toddlers (There, We Said It)
by Kara Swisher
Posted on October 9, 2007 at 11:37 AM PT
Fine, call me a grumpy old lady, because I don’t want to pass around a toasty complex carbohydrate globally.
Right now on Facebook, I have been trying to decide what to do near on two weeks or more, after receiving a “Hot Potato” tossed to me by my old boss, Washington Post Co. CEO and Chairman Don Graham (oh, yes–his family also owns a key hunk of the legendary paper, too).
For those who don’t know what a digital Hot Potato is: It is a widget (also called a third-party app) created by a very nice-looking group of guys at a design outfit called Hungry Machine for the Facebook platform.
“You have to pass it on and watch it travel around the world. 27,012 other people did!”
With all due respect to Don Graham (who is a mentor of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, by the way), Hungry Machine and all world-trotting spuds, I don’t think so.
I get it, I get it. Millions upon millions of people are downloading and using these apps, part of a very clever ecosystem Zuckerberg unleashed in late May.
Under the scheme, widget-makers got to go wild on Facebook and Facebook got to offload a chunk of its feature development onto others. (See my movie below of the f8 launch, including a somewhat awkward Zuckerberg on the stage.)
At that event, a 750-person jeans-and-T-shirt-clad army of Web developers gathered at the San Francisco Design Center’s Concourse and began to create even more apps in earnest with an all-night hackathon.
“Until now, social networks have been closed platforms,” said Zuckerberg at the event, calling on outside developers to integrate their applications into the service. “Today, we’re going to end that.”
But, so far, as popular as those apps have become, what Zuckerberg and the widget-makers have wrought is mostly silly, useless and time-wasting and the kazillion users of these widgets are pretty much just acting like little children.
I never thought I would call the often frivolous AOL back in the day–very simply, a Neanderthal version of Facebook–a mature offering in comparison.
While I will admit when I am not chewing nails that a lot of these apps are somewhat fun, I can’t help but ask myself that lyric from the old Peggy Lee classic: “Is that all there is?”
And if that is all there is, can Facebook really build a viable and long-lasting business on what is essentially a bunch of games that will ultimately become wearying for users? Doesn’t it need more robust apps that actually are useful and relevant and make Facebook the service that Zuckerberg has often told me was a “utility”?
While Facebook–with a cleaner and more strict look and a better navigation–is surely less goofy than rival MySpace for anyone over 12 years old, and its video, photo and email features are nice, the vast majority of its apps are still mostly as dumb as a box of hammers.
Maybe they will attract scads of ads and maybe not, but first consider the top apps on Facebook right now.
Slide’s No. 1 Top Friends, which has 2.94 million daily active users, lets you “add a box of up to 32 of your BFFs to your profile.”
Wheeeee! Paris Hilton forever!
Not to pick on them particularly, as I think they are great developers (see my post on Slide here), but Slide’s FunWall (2.2 million) lets you add lots of bells and whistles to what is essentially graffiti-writing.
And its SuperPoke (1.16 million) is just plain rude when it notes, “Why just poke when you can pinch, hug, tickle, pwn [sic] or even throw sheep?”
Sheep? SuperPoking? I’d be getting queasy if I were a Procter & Gamble media buyer right about now!
iLike (694,000), with its music recommendations and sharing, is all well and good, but also light.
And X Me from Rock You (673,000)? “Tired of just poking? X Me opens up a whole new world of action-based communication, for example, ‘Hug Her, Slap Him, Tickle Them!’”
Oh no, you didn’t.
What else? Vampires. Werewolves. Naughty Gifts. An Honesty Box where you can say gross things in messages anonymously.
And my rececent favorite, which grew 4,107% the other day, called Pop Ur Zit!
To give you the entire feel for it, I am printing their whole reason for being below (plus this lovely cartoon above):
Another usual day…. With half-closed eyes, you are headed to the bathroom…OH MY GOD!!! It’s the Zits!!!
“Pop your zits at your friends and gross them out!! But you can also rescue (soothe) them with your favorite products. It will cool them down, relieving their stress as well as changing their biorhythm.
“See what happens every 10 hours and see what you can do by popping your friend’s zits. Zitometers will sync with your actions and time. Be aware of alerts on zitometer. Your friend’s soothing is the only way you can get rid of your zits on your face.
“You will get rewarded for being a kind soother. Your rank will go up as you soothe more people and you will get different coupons to use on hundreds of shopping malls.”
Is it just me?
No, thankfully. Wired Editor and “The Long Tail” author (who should know about this stuff) Chris Anderson wrote about the Facebook apps market in a post, which was actually a reaction to another analysis report by Tim O’Reilly.
By way of background, Anderson noted that O’Reilly’s report showed that Facebook apps were “top-heavy, with the top 84 apps of the 5,000 analyzed having 87% of the traffic,” before moving on to the obvious conclusion of why this was so:
1. The social networking on Facebook is too powerful. This is the tyranny of network effects, where viral success is the only kind and popularity snowballs into an avalanche or goes nowhere at all. That sort of herd behavior is usually a sign of an immature market.
2. Most apps are total crap. That, in turn, may say something about the whole idea of Facebook as a platform. But I’ll leave that discussion for another day.”
So, let’s discuss. And no potato-throwing, please.
Next chapter: Why I don’t really want to SuperPoke, say, Digg’s Jay Adelson, on our 2,500-person strong D: All Things Digital group on Facebook? But what else is there to do?
Comments
Or as my friend more succinctly put it “Facebook is just a time suck”.
I like the extended cut too, though.
Posted by Jay Parkhill at October 9th, 2007 at 12:37 pmWe are in the era of micromedia, media tailored for a specific audience. But, Facebook is going against this trend. It’s cross-generational and becoming more and more global. Do we have the same tastes? Do we all like the same things? Can a 40 year old professional enjoy the same application of a teenager? Maybe, maybe not. Hence the proliferation of “useless” apps.
I have “friends” that span (in age) from their teens to their early 70s. If you think about it, it’s quite incredible. All these generations using the same platform to communicate and express themselves? How can this work? For how long will it work? I honestly don’t know. I think we will start to see more and more professional applications and applications to write our own application. We are still in an experimental phase. I am still experimenting. In the meantime I will continue to ignore vampires and draculas and hope to not receive the Hot Potato. But will continue to click to your posts from my Facebook home page.
Posted by Luca Penati at October 9th, 2007 at 4:37 pmhey kara -
interesting piece, and i can understand your opinion / perspective.
still, i think you’re measuring the impact of the platform when it’s just barely into the top of the 1st inning of a baseball game.
platform has been out for all of ~5 months, and while adoption for many of these apps are impressive for that short a timeframe, the overall maturity of the apps is still fairly limited.
in addition, i think you could argue the case that there are 3 basic types of apps:
1) distribution / acquisition apps
2) engagement / retention apps
3) monetization apps
for most companies, they are still working on types #1 and #2 — and in fact, for our class at Stanford, those are the 2 major app assignments we’re having our students work on during the semester.
even Slide itself, the biggest of the FB app companies, they’ve just in the past few months announced a focus around engagement and monetization over distribution, and even for Facebook itself you could suggest they just recently shifted to optimizing for engagement when they moved to a daily user metric last month.
so in summary — are most of the apps very lightweight, distribution focused, and relatively “useless” for productivity work? absolutely. but they’re GREAT for entertainment & acquisition.
HOWEVER, that DOES NOT mean there aren’t innings 4-6 that are focused on engagement, nor innings 7-9 that focus on monetization. we’re just in the early stages of the game, and right now developers are — probably rightfully so — focusing on acquisition… at least while the market is growing so damn fast.
in the near term, developers are / will be transitioning to focus on engagement, and in the future — perhaps AFTER Facebook implements a standard checkout / payment mechanism — on monetization.
don’t misinterpret the actions of the starting pitcher as the same strategy for the setup man or the closer.
my .02,
- dave mcclure
Posted by dave mcclure at October 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pmhttp://www.graphingsocial.com
http://www.500hats.com
@Dave – the baseball game analogy doesn’t work for me, sorry.
Facebook is trying to take a fad and sustain it.
It was interesting for a while, but I already see a *marked* reduction in both my own use and those who are close to me. How soon before facebook is blocked on corporate networks, just like [yahoo mail|napster|youtube|pirate bay|whatever].
If IT types see facebook as a vacuous hole into which employees’ time (read productivity) is lost, rest assured it will be blocked. How does “the platform” escape that fate, when dumbass apps like the ones Kara mentions are at the top? Exactly how much time is wasted, every day, on facebook?
In short, how does facebook actually help an enterprise? I see some firms embracing Facebook as a communciations vehicle, and that is both interesting and a bit spooky. Spooky because it seems to be the result of outsourcing internal communications that weren’t occuring within the existing framework. What does that say for the organization? I’m not sure.
@Kara – interesting timing of this piece, as it reflects my own opinion. (”Is this it?”)
Posted by John Minnihan at October 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm@John – your usage may have tapered, but the overall platform stats indicate that you are definitely in the minority.
at our Graphing Social Patterns conference today,
according to Dave Morin, Sr Platform Manager @ Facebook, recent stats indicate that Facebook itself is growing at about 1.1% per day, or 3% per week. Facebook App growth is almost double that, around 2% per day or 6-7% per week. while you may be one data point, the empirical sample says otherwise.
and the market activity also suggests otherwise too. developers are voting with their feet to jump onto the FB platform, as are users that continue to grow the demographic outside the original college one.
and your example above of IT managers blocking usage in corp environments IS EXACTLY THE PROOF that those users DO feel it’s valuable — so much so, they’re actually willing to risk negative occupational repercussions in order to keep doing so. if that’s not an example of incredible user loyalty and potential for future value, then i don’t know what the hell is.
how does facebook actually help an enterprise? there are several ways… communication, groups, events, etc. whether or not it’s the perfect vehicle (or an authorized one) is perhaps debatable, but the fact that corporations are BANNING usage drives home the point that those folks certainly think it’s valuable.
anyway, i’m beating a dead horse here. measuring value before platform maturity is achieved is naive.
while you may not suggest that Roger Federer was worth millions of dollars at age 15 or 16, certainly the potential for future success was perceived by many. asserting that his athletic immaturity at that age was a likely indicator of future success would have been a huge mistake.
- dmc
Posted by dave mcclure at October 9th, 2007 at 8:11 pmI think the excellent post of Tim O’Reilly the other day showed that writing good Facebook applications is hard, most fail and few get adequate number of users:
http://vanelsas.wordpress.com/.....n-is-hard/
But I als think that Facebook will get some really tough competition with both MySpace and Orkut providig developers api’s. Note that Orkut provides more openness than Facebook on this matter. And now with Google buying Jaiku I think Facebook will be no match for Google. They are going into some stiff competition. Lets hope in the end the user will benefit. Which company will stand up and proviode API’s across all networks? That will be the winner.
Posted by Alexander van Elsas at October 9th, 2007 at 10:30 pmhttp://vanelsas.wordpress.com/.....or-google/
We’re in the very first phase here, and so far everyone watching the race is attuned to one measure of success: adoption.
Since adoption has been the name of the game, app builders have focused on lightweight, low-effort, high-passalong interactions. Is it any wonder, then, that the this first wave of Facebook apps play to entertainment, vanity, and virality?
As we settle in, more important metrics, like engagement and revenue, will be the ones we watch. Zuckerberg’s social graph can enable more meaningful value than just viral zombie bites — once applications drive true collaboration and community.
When these more sophisticated applications get deployed, we’ll see legions of new properties take off within Facebook and innovating on its platform and social graph. I think those will be the ones that have truly meaningful impact — and lasting economic value.
Posted by Ben Elowitz at October 9th, 2007 at 11:37 pm@Dave – no doubt there’s tremendous interest and usage – the numbers clearly show that, and your insight is valuable in better understanding it.
Is it sustainable? You note that my usage is “one data point”. I suggest that my one data point is one of many, perhaps so loosely coupled that a relationship isn’t apparent. Activity of friends in my network has dropped off noticably, after a period of hyper-activity where these same friends were updating status, etc. multiple times daily (as well as posting links, videos, etc.)
Even Scoble’s direct use (at least what he shares) has dropped off measurably. Previously, he was making multiple posts per hour. These days, hardly a peep (but he’s tweeting like its 1999).
I don’t think all of that activity change, in terms of the behavior it represents in such a short period, can be ignored. (I’m also taking into account his time away with his new daughter)
Is Scoble the canary in the coal mine?
My entire point is summed up here: what happens if IT shops ban fb traffic, before any additional enterprise value is developed, or even perceived?
Facebook is today seen as a giant time waster. Proliferation – and use – of idiotic apps doesn’t help. Banning the traffic is a simple move, and is undoubtedly already occuring.
Kara’s post is an example of mainstream media calling this out. CIOs, VP of Operations, etc. – the ones who control the access policies of their networks – are reading the WSJ and are seeing pieces like this. Will the growth it is experiencing now stall, drop or simply “move off” the corp IT networks?
That’s a critical question. If facebook can demonstrate & deliver real enterprise value before blocking becomes commonplace, the shift will have occurred and I will be pleasantly surprised (and to jump onto your metaphor) – I’ll root for extra innings.
Posted by John Minnihan at October 10th, 2007 at 6:24 amJohn: i won’t ignore that some folks have had a momentary infatuation with FB & FB apps, or even that some have had a negative experience.
however, even your *multiple* data points aside, the numbers in aggregate do not back up your position… at all. the overwhelming evidence from the stats point to a huge success that continues to grow.
altho i disagree with her analysis, kara’s point about useless apps is a much easier position to argue than yours about waning activity.
you can ignore the music if you want, but according to the #’s, the volume is unquestionably getting LOUDER.
Posted by dave mcclure at October 10th, 2007 at 8:55 am@Dave – big numbers, even when they grow rapidly, don’t automatically equate to a sustainable model.
I can’t imagine a scenario in which my life would be affected by facebook’s success or failure, in any way at all. Short-sighted? Dunno, but it doesn’t seem so.
I’m simply asking the obvious question: what happens when CIOs notice the same thing I did (and Kara did, and Cris A did, etc.) – that existing apps are devoid of any value to the enterprise, and the subsequent use of facebook on company networks is costing the company untold $$$ in bandwidth and lost productivity.
This is a real question and I’d love to hear you address it, given your background and eye to emerging trends.
“Music” metaphor notwithstanding, all I hear right now is noise.
(for the record, as an entrepreneur I think Zuckerberg has kicked butt. We dream of billion-dollar valuations; he seems to have (almost) pulled it off. if the thing doesn’t implode under its own weight, that is)
Posted by John Minnihan at October 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pmDave – it is good that user acquisition and widget user acq are growing (they should be growing since FB still has to catch up to and surpass MS). However, what does the class curve look like? 1 month in, how much time does a user spend on the site? Two months in?
I think the question is whether FB can provide ongoing value to ensure stickiness.
I would be very interesting to see any numbers on that to inform the discussion.
Posted by Shripriya Mahesh at October 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pm@shri: wonderful to see you in the comments m’dear!) (guess Twenty20 must be over
now THIS is exactly the conversation we should be having — cohort analysis and retention decay (or not) — these are much better ways to analyze whether we’re seeing signs of success.
@john: big growing numbers may not equal sustainability, but given the option i’ll take big growing #’s over little shrinking #’s any day of the week my friend.
“when CIOs notice the same thing i did” isn’t relevant if you & those CIOs & kara are in the minority.
utility is in the mouse of the beholder, and right now the aggregate # of clicks say that those Apps ARE valuable. your opinion, while still valid, is not one held in majority.
again, i’ll state my strong opinion: the apps you & kara are describing as “useless” are viewed as “fun & entertaining” by the majority of users. furthermore, these are “customer acquisition” apps that will be followed by “engagement & retention apps” followed by “monetization apps”.
in the meantime, here’s to flinging poo, throwing food, and sending a Boozemail your way
- dave “childishness is next to godliness” mcclure
Posted by dave mcclure at October 11th, 2007 at 12:32 am@dave “in the meantime, here’s to flinging poo, throwing food, and sending a Boozemail your way”
Doh!
I’ll take big numbers too, but at what cost? And who is really bearing that cost today?
Minority or not, if a CIO of a large enterprise blocks fb traffic (x N enterprises), then fb usage (traffic) must necessarily shift as well. If usage becomes time-shifted to members’ home (or at least non-work networks), will the numbers continue?
Are fb’s big numbers (both adoption rate & daily usage) a direct result of easy access to network resources while at work or school? I certainly don’t know, but be assured that when fb traffic shows up as an identifiable, non-trivial piece of traffic on an enterprise network, it will be noticed & assessed. Blocking is almost certainly already happening – though I haven’t read of any orgainizations that have publicly stated doing this.
I really think this deserves some analysis. Blocking is going to happen, and it won’t matter at all if the CIO makes an unpopular decision (following your assumption that she is in the minority). It will be about operational costs, and a desire to eliminate what will be seen as waste.
This has happened several times before, and there is no reason (as of today) to believe it won’t happen in this case as well.
This would be different if there was substantial, apparent, immediate enterprise value in either fb in the whole, or a single app. But there just isn’t today, and that is why I’ve dropped off my usage & cet. par., will be why blocking occurs.
I’m repeating myself at this point, so no need to ramble on.
Great discourse though – thanks.
Posted by John Minnihan at October 11th, 2007 at 6:43 amI wonder how they got aay with using “f8″, especially in San Francisco, as it used to be the name of a record company in the bay area(mostly techno)? I guess everybody is waiting for Mark Z to show how facebook is useful. I know I’m one of them. Entertaining, yes, but useful?! The way I see it is facebbok canibalizing, itself. Which is sad. I think with some work, facebook could be made useful, but I know I’m not floating ideas, unless they pay me. Frankly, I don’t trust Zuckerberg, for some reason. h just doesn’t engender a great deal of trust in me, and trust is important, especially in a relationship. I think Microsoft sees the same opportunity, which is why that stake, if they don’t come to their senses first, or develop a comparable social network of their own, first. One think Dave Mcclure is missing is “content”, in the equation/steps. Content is step zero, before distribution, before branding(retention). It was the users who were creating the content, not sure where that is at, today, but if facebook hopes to suceed, they ar going to have to create/develop their own content, or you just leave the user feeling vacuous/empty, which echoes the “is that it?” sentiment that previous commenters have already mentioned. Vapor, that’s what facebook has in truth, and the distraction of the geeky “apps” will only last so long. I see a few ways to improve facebook, but I’m not too inspired to implement them. It’s like watching a person play cards, and you see plays that they don’t, but should you help them or shouldn’t you. But, I think someone brought up a good point about good app developers building some cross-platformability into their apps, because that day will come, sooner or later.
Posted by rod sandcones at October 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pmDave, John.. good argument. Here’s my 2c.
Clearly early application developers seeking to acquire active users went for the simple funny useless entertaining ideas. They have had a head start and because network effects is the gas pedal on which this market breathes, they are galloping while the laggards remain envious and wishful. But the success in engagement they have had is with teens, students.
Clearly the older age groups have started to participate, but is it to observe or is it to participate. Fred makes the point in his musings http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007.....ok-ag.html that participation drops off like a waterfall once the years weather off. Facebook is still predominantly a 15 to 26 year old service. The usage drops off dramatically once people get above 30 years old.
Research from a recent user study (email me the link if someone finds it, I cant find it) shows that more than half of Facebook users are not currently enrolled in a university or college and that the site’s fastest-growing demo is the 25+ age group. So they are enrolling and observing and wondering. But they are not engaging like the younger ones do. I see that in my peer group and thats what I feel.
So what does that mean. The 25+ browse more but participating less while 16-25 engage as a predominant social communication and entertainment.
So what does that say for 3rdparty applications. They are still stupid because active users are 16-25. They will mature if the 25+ generation starts adopting social networking platforms for their social interaction needs. I bet that 25+ generation will do that, they are getting warmed up.. kind of learning the new ways.. isn’t it always like that as we grow older.
What do you all say?
sumit
Posted by sumit gupta at October 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pmhttp://techwag.blogspot.com/
Many comments before me talk about the simplicity of most current Facebook applications. They are silly and frivolous. Somehow this recipe yields hundreds of thousands or millions of users. I suspect that as the application devs mature and Facebook users tire of the same old we will see more useful applications.
One such that I use daily is Inner Circle, http://apps.facebook.com/innercircle if you have a facebook account or http://register.facebook.com/r.....2459697025. This application helps to turn Facebook in to a useful organizing tool for social contacts. The grouping and messaging functionality would be reason enough to keep Inner Circle installed. The best part, though, is it brings all the going ons of your friends to one page so you can quickly catch up. The Facebook Newsfeed page has too much noise on it to serve the same function.
Posted by Naveed Ihsanullah at November 27th, 2007 at 8:12 am