All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

BoomTown

The Children’s Crusade Strikes Back at Not-a-Teenager (aka Really Old Lady) BoomTown

The ankle-biters have spoken and it seems that I am completely wrong in my estimation in several recent posts where I wrote that Facebook widgets are–how shall we put it delicately?–exceedingly inane.

Why? Apparently because inane is the goal! Well then, I guess: Mission accomplished!

toybox

At an appearance at the Web 2.0 Summit yesterday, a group on a panel called “Facebook as a Platform,” led by Dave McClure, talked about a lot of stuff.

But it seemed to get lively when the discussion turned to my comparison of the boom in third party apps on Facebook to the arrival in my home of a box of shiny plastic toys from China.

I was at home with my own actual 2-year-old playing a rousing game of hit-mama-with-the-foam-finger- and-crack-up-hysterically, when the group–which included Seth Goldstein of SocialMedia, Ali Partovi of iLike, Keith Rabois of Slide and Lance Tokuda of RockYou–declared me humorless.

All because I did not realize that these apps were meant to be silly and more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Actually, I did know that and, by the way, monkeys are much more fun.

Here was my initial argument:

But, so far, as popular as those apps have become, what [Facebook founder Mark] 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.”

“Kara’s argument is ridiculous,” said Slide’s Rabois, according to a report on Wired.com.

“Why do people watch movies and TV? Because they’re bored or looking for something to do to relieve stress in their lives. Apps are providing entertainment to users.”

gilligan

Really, Keith? I had no idea, despite the fact that “Gilligan’s Island” was my favorite show for way too many years!

Seriously, I know what he is saying and I agree on the need for some fun on this tragic little spinning globe of ours, except:

1. I would be fine with silly widgets, if there were more serious ones too, well beyond Vampires and SuperPokes and even an app called Pop Ur Zit. All of these have the longevity of a gnat, designed to be faddish and quickly forgotten. And, if you are going to be fun, one might try a little harder to come up with some offerings that are a little less disposable.

In fact, on a recent visit I made to RockYou HQ (post coming Monday), its savvy tech lead noted that there was surely a limit to how much crap people wanted to throw at each other.

2. Entertainment, especially the idiotic kind, will not get you to massive sustained usage that characterizes a true paradigm shift that McClure claimed was happening.

For example, was it all the games that made the personal computer become a ubiquitous device? No, it was serious programs like VisiCalc and Lotus 1-2-3.

So where are those kind of apps for systems like Facebook, I wonder, as I noted in another post about what to do with a group of 2,500 techies I have gathered on the social-networking site. So far, we have a whole lot of nothing to offer them.

3. Another argument made on the panel was that the blogosphere used to be disdained as goofy only a few years ago and now it is a true media power.

Well, it was never disdained by me and, actually, there were a lot of substantive and important blogs even back then to balance out the fluffier ones. In fact, there were more.

4. As RockYou’s Tokuda said, referring to me: “I believe for her the apps are useless because she’s not a teenage girl.”

hannah

This is not a news flash, although I probably am one of the older diehard fans of “Hannah Montana.”

But it is not necessarily true that advertisers will flock to these widgets, just because the kids love it.

Because as much as advertisers want to reach a younger demographic, they also do not want to do it in an environment of frivolous engagement and I doubt there is much appeal to them when people are busy slapping each other digitally or cartoonifying their friends. In addition, advertisers want to reach people who will buy things and few are in that mindset when they are anonymously telling someone else the “honest” truth or being a Human Pet.

I could go on, but will stop there, so the Lollipop Guild can respond in crayon.

But here’s one offer I will take RockYou’s Tokuda up on: A promise he made onstage to build something just for me.

Just some guidance, Lance: No poking, slapping, tickling or zit-picking.

Call me old-fashioned, because I know you will anyway.

Comments

  1. I guess that as long the Facebook application developers treat all users as idiots, they will keep producing the same idiotic applications. Comes with the territory.

    Posted by Alexander van Elsas at October 19th, 2007 at 4:18 am
  2. Ginger, or Mary Anne? :-D

    Posted by Bruce Evans at October 19th, 2007 at 8:04 am
  3. hey kara -

    the discussion got lively, altho i believe the point i was trying to make got lost in the teenager / ridiculous / etc bashing…

    other panelist soundbites aside, what i was trying to draw out was that the current set of apps were ’simple’ because they were primarily focusing on user acquisition, and give that as the [initial] target, the apps are logically created to be fairly simple.

    anyway, it was an interesting topic & i hope you didn’t feel sideswiped by lance or keith’s rebuttal. wasn’t meant as an opportunity for potshots.

    (but still nice use of hannah montana regardless ;)

    - dave mc

    ps – lunch @ web 2.0?

    Posted by dave mcclure at October 19th, 2007 at 8:30 am
  4. I’m confused about why people are fascinated with FB applications as well. All I can say is you have to respect any blogger willing to post a picture of the Giligan’s Island crew. :)

    Posted by Mark Evans at October 19th, 2007 at 8:47 am
  5. Bruce: Ginger or Mary Anne? Totally, Mrs. Howell!

    Dave: Don’t worry. I don’t! Sorry, I am not there today. T-ball practice with an actual five year old.

    Mark: You will really respect me when I get around to posting pix of the cast of “F Troop,” an inane television application if there ever was one. Facebook could learn a thing or two from that show!

    Human Pets? Babe (and I mean Babe as in Baby), I think not.

    Posted by Kara Swisher at October 19th, 2007 at 9:24 am
  6. I’m confused as to why there is so much hostility focused at Facebook widgets. These items are simple utilities and become what you make of them. For instance, iLike and Flixsters’ Movies are for sharing personal tastes with freinds. I see nothing silly or inane about it, but rather social networking tools based on discovering new entertainment sources from your freinds.
    If you are looking at this from a business perspective, which the consumers could care less about BTW, it’s a way of generating revenue from the purchases that result from expanding consumer tastes.
    My advice: look past the games and see the utility.

    Posted by Joshua Young at October 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
  7. actually i’d echo Joshua’s remarks.

    iLike, Movies (by Flixster), and iRead are all great examples of very deep, engaging, useful apps that are likely monetizable for several volume categories in music, movies, & books.

    these 3 apps aren’t simplistic, flippant, or useless. and they may not generated revenue directly (altho i bet they do), but likely are adding deep demographing profiling data on user segments that will likely drive lead-gen & purchase.

    kara: have you tried them? what say you? don’t these qualify as productive/useful, even if they’re in the leisure entertainment category?

    - dave

    Posted by dave mcclure at October 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
  8. (ps – sorry i can’t spell or proofread my comments. sheesh)

    Posted by dave mcclure at October 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
  9. On some level, this debate becomes a larger issue of what kind of contribution web 2.0 wants to make to the world. The great energy behind tech innovations has always been huge ambitions — ambitions for real change — and facebook apps, thus far, are really not living up to those ambitions. So while they are fine — yes, it’s nice to see what music people like, but whatever — they are not great, and they should be great if they want to be meaningful.

    With social networks, the computer revolution is at a crossroads — will it keep reaching for true, radical, and yes, utilitarian change, or will it become more about self-conscious posturing and useless information?

    Also, one moment to defend television: television is not just something to stare at when you are bored. At its best, it is a living art form that addresses cultural phenomena more thoroughly than anything else in our culture, and at its worst, it is a grotesque mirror image of everything that is appalling in our culture, neither of which is ultimately frivolous. I doubt even the producers of the most inane show on television would defend it by saying it was something people could do when they were bored instead of just staring at a wall. A widget-maker who defends his product that way does not exactly inspire confidence. Seriously, not even tv hacks are that cynical! And that means we MUST be in a freakish bubble.

    Posted by Felix Martinez at October 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
  10. What Felix says.

    Posted by Kara Swisher at October 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
  11. Dave:

    I have tried them all. Meh.

    Posted by Kara Swisher at October 20th, 2007 at 12:13 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

Comments posted on this site must be signed with your full, real name. Please see our Comments policy for details.

Latest BoomTown Videos

More Videos »

About Kara

Kara Swisher started covering digital issues for The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco bureau in 1997 and also wrote the BoomTown column about the sector. With Walt Mossberg, she co-produces and co-hosts D: All Things Digital, a major high-tech and media conference. Read more »

Ethics Statement

Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Read more »