Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Redmond's Heavy Guns Go After OpenSocial

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the rat-a-tat-tat dept.

Google 148

jg21 writes "It is probably coincidental, but two responses to OpenSocial from well-respected members of the Microsoft blogging community have each in their own way come out against Google's OpenSocial initiative, Dare Osabanjo because in his view OpenSocial while billed as a standardized widget platform for the Web, actually isn't. And Don Dodge because his claim is that fifty million Facebook developers "don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care.""

cancel ×

148 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Big guns, eh? Bah. (5, Funny)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240725)

Guns ablazin', I'm SURE they could take on the entire Google fanbase.

Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240777)

Today Microsoft announced that it would be helping to make OpenSocial suceed in any way thet they can.

Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241083)

Microsoft is just getting a taste of their own medicine. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Googles big enough now to cause some of the same concerns for the big boys like Microsoft is, the only difference now is that Microsoft is on the other side of the recieving end of the table and they don't like it. Seems like the "What goes around comes around" is taking effect.

Ballmer, this would be the same reason small companies get angry at your company, this is why open standards are important, so no one owns them, yet everyone can benefit from them, and do true cross platform.

Oh, but wait that's right, you don't understand the meaning of competition or like it for that matter, because you haven't had it as you would say "in your way" in a longtime

Well - enjoy!

Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. (1)

kyofunikushimi (769712) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241211)

Dare Osabanjo because in his view OpenSocial while billed as a standardized widget platform for the Web, actually isn't
ODF, anyone?

Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. (5, Funny)

dynamo (6127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241303)

Microsoft does not know what an open standard IS, though they keep claiming to.

Hell, they don't really even know what a standard is.

Re:Big guns, eh? Bah. (4, Funny)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21243091)

Hell, they don't really even know what a standard is.

Sure they do, that's that thing they keep changing every time they release a new version of Office.

Problem with your mod points (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241537)

There may be a problem with your mod points. Pls test them by modding this comment insightful.

Re:Problem with your mod points (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241933)

There may be a problem with your meta-moderation. Please test by meta-modding the moderation of the parent as "Troll" to "bad".

OpenSocial = Google freaking out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241879)

Google has been freaking out over Facebook, since it's a big chunk of the internet which is walled off to them. They wanted to buy in.... but Zuckerberg went insane, started seeing dollar signs, and valued Facebook at $15 BILLION. Those are some awfully big cojones, seeing as how Facebook hasn't made a single dime in profit yet.

Now that MS has not only sorta kinda bought in to Facebook, but has also given credibility to Faceberg's ridiculous $15 Billion valuation, Google knows it's crazy to dump that kind of cash into something which will probably never turn a profit. They can only support so many YouTubes, after all.

So now, OpenSocial is what it looks like when Google throws chairs against walls. They want in on Facebook, and are hoping people will give them a backdoor into the system.

Good luck on that, Googs. We see how many billions there were to be made in the instant messenger space. I'm sure the personal webpage/social networking stuff is going to be just as lucrative.

Re:OpenSocial = Google freaking out (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242257)

All of this for a stupid social networking site.

Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240731)

<sarcasm>
Shocking! Shocking I say!

What is wrong with the world, this day in age, when a company's employees will come out and bash the competitors competing products?
</sarcasm>

This is about as surprising as Ballmer bashing Apple, Apple bashing MS or Google, [insert any other corporate rivalry here]. News it ain't.

Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (5, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240883)

It's even funnier than that! It's Microsoft employees bewailing the notion that people don't follow standards!

"Open" (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241553)

It's even funnier than that! It's Microsoft employees bewailing the notion that people don't follow standards!


Its not about not following standards, its about not submitting work to standards body, and specifically, about not being "open" because the technology isn't submitted to a standards body. Osanbanjo writes:

There are all sorts of forums for proposing and discussing open Web technologies including the IETF, W3C, OASIS and even ECMA. Until all of the underlying technologies in OpenSocial have been handed over to one or more of these standards bodies, this is a case of the proprietary pot calling the proprietary kettle black.


Yeah, its the new Microsoft definition of "open": "open" means "submitted to a standards body".

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (2, Funny)

StarfishOne (756076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240943)

Just wait! Tomorrow Ballmer will announce the 'OpenChair' API!

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241009)

I thought it was going to be the next MS hardware venture - the Chairapult.

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (5, Funny)

Misch (158807) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241121)

I thought it was going to be the next MS hardware venture - the Chairapult

No, it's the Trebuchaise.

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242117)

Yes, but only *after* Google comes out with their "Open Lazy-boy launcher Beta" - this way MS can have a reason to fucking kill Google...

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (1)

bball99 (232214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242927)

- this post is the funniest i've read here on /. in nearly four years!

- tks!

[wiping milk off nostrils, beard, and front of shirt]

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21243317)

I vote this the best pun of the week!

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241185)

Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.

Ain't ain't not no word.

It's in the dictionary: ain't [reference.com] .

RTFM (0)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241239)

"Despite these misgivings, I think this is a step in the right direction."

It doesn't sound like bashing to me.

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241615)

Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.

Yeah, but...
  • "Competitor's" is the correction of a grammar mistake, while
  • "isn't" ain't.
;-P

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (0)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241901)

You are right. This is as surprising as seeing some Linuzzz user bashing MS on slashdot.

What people forget is that those 2 bloggers are expressing their "private" opinions, which may have nothing to do with the official opinion of MS as a corporation.

Hell, in my blog I have spoken pests about all thing Abble (considering that I am obligated to use a Abble Makintosh), but this is not the official position of my university. Not at all... and if you read the disclaimer on those MS bloggers you will note that the same thing apply to them.

Freedom of speech anyone?

Re:Microsoft employees bashing something non-MS? (0, Offtopic)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242083)

'Grammar Nazis: Yes, I am aware that "ain't" really isn't a word.'

Generally I hate grammar nazis but I can't resist; "ain't" is a word. Language ain't defined by prudes it's defined by usage. The usage of the word "ain't" is widespread and long established. It is actually depressing that even the dictionary contains bigotry and stereotyping though. "Ain't" is not widely used by the uneducated, it is widely used by southerners and the idea that "ain't" is used by the uneducated stems from the false belief that southerners are ignorant and uneducated.

Dictionary Boy to the Rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21242805)

Actually according to the dictionary a word is "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning".

Ain't most certainly is a word.

What social networks are really about... (5, Funny)

TofuMatt (1105351) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240755)

I agree. Who the fuck cares about APIs? It's not like people are joining Facebook just to add fifty million stupid applications to their profile.

Re:What social networks are really about... (3, Insightful)

monkeyboythom (796957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240925)

Actually, I don't care that you don't care. In addition, the Facebook crowd does not care either. But I do, because less developer competition is a bonus for me.

However, the Facebook crowd will care when they see a nifty new plug-in or tool that allows them to have a social calendar robot(tm) or ad hoc open forum(tm) or anything else that will make their Facebook experience more pleasant, more useful, or just plain old stupid but with really interesting eye candy.

And by then, you'll care because you don't want to be left out of the "cool crowd."

Re:What social networks are really about... (3, Funny)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241115)

Clearly what we need is a Facebook group for "Get Facebook to support OpenSocial!"

As we all know, when Facebook groups become big enough, they can move mountains... :)

Re:What social networks are really about... (2, Informative)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242103)

so a global group search on facebook and you'll see that there are 16 groups with "OpenSocial" in their name. they're all currently growing in size.

Re:What social networks are really about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241985)

Well, since we're expressing opinions, and some of us are being dickheaded about it, I don't care about it either.

And if you think that this API will automatically move all development off of facebook like your shitty example seems to imply, you are wrong again. At best, you see developers building similar widgets for both in the same way you see it happening for Google Desktop, Vista Sidebar and Yahoo's Konfabulator. They aren't THAT difficult to build. The shit apps won't be copied. The good ones will within days. Nobody will ever even notice which site had it first.

GP is right, and I don't give a shit either.
So we'll be right back at zero on widgets and asking where the vibrant community is, which is exactly what these communities are all about anyway.

Re:What social networks are really about... (2, Interesting)

acidrain (35064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242317)

the Facebook crowd will care when they see a nifty new plug-in

Many Facebook users are really sick of the apps on Facebook. I get 5 content-free messages every day that would require me to install some juvenile piece of shit just to confirm that I didn't care about it's content, and I'm thinking the mountain of stupid apps could be the death of Facebook. Considering Facebook's initial popularity was based on not being as stupid as Myspace.

Perhaps Google is late to the party on this one. We already have "app fatigue."

Re:What social networks are really about... (3, Insightful)

clonmult (586283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241067)

Nope, you're absolutely right - its not fifty million stupid applications, its closer to 20 million.

And at least 99.999% of them suck.

Hear, hear! (1)

HotButteredHampster (614950) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242073)

I recently deactivated my Facebook account, largely because of the flood of stupid applications and friends bugging you to add said stupid applications. Maybe if I spent an hour or more per day at Facebook I'd find them fun diversions, but as is they are annoying, annoying, annoying.

Personally, I think this is just an attempt by Google to kill the entire social networking fad. Make them ALL as annoying as Facebook, and they'll be done.

HBH

Re:What social networks are really about... (2, Funny)

damaki (997243) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241269)

I am a vampire/wereworlf/FilthBook user on Facebook and without APIs, I'd starve/sing/mast****** to death, you insensitive clod!

fifty million Facebook developers (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240765)

fifty million Facebook developers "don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care."

Well yeah, if you're going to base the usefulness of something on how many Facebook developers know about it, pretty much nothing is useful.

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240787)

Well yeah, if you're going to base the usefulness of something on how many Facebook developers know about it, pretty much nothing is useful.
Yeah, that was a pretty retarded statement. Like saying that Linux is useless because Windows developers aren't interested in it. And 50 million? Uh, right...

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241479)

Sorry, but in order for a social networking application to be useful, [i]lots of people have to be interested in it[/i]. You don't need a social networking application to connect to your friends whom you sit around with in the basement playing D&D. You're not going to reconnect with old friends (which is what I use Facebook for) if none of your old friends use it.

So, the Linux vs. Windows analogy isn't really fitting...

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (3, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241659)

Sorry, but in order for a social networking application to be useful, [i]lots of people have to be interested in it[/i]


(1) OpenSocial isn't an application, its a set of technologies on which applications are built;
(2) Actually, you need lots of people involved in the social network, which serves as the "database" of the social networking application. They don't have to use the particular application, much less be interested in the particular set of APIs on which the application is built; and
(3) Lots of people can be not interested in something (the supposed 50 million Facebook "developers") and still have lots of other people interested in it. "Lots of people aren't interested in X" does not imply the falsity of "lots of people are interested in X".

You don't need a social networking application to connect to your friends whom you sit around with in the basement playing D&D.


Certainly not while you are doing that; outside of that time, social networking functionality would be useful to just that kind of group, too.

You're not going to reconnect with old friends (which is what I use Facebook for) if none of your old friends use it.


So? What does that have to do with OpenSocial APIs? Your friends don't have to use the OpenSocial APIs, or even applications built with them, for them to be part of the network you access if you use them. You seem to be confusing social networks with social networking applications and with social networking technologies and confusing developers with users.

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242387)

(1) OpenSocial isn't an application, its a set of technologies on which applications are built;


Of course, but those applications as an aggregate require interest for any of them to be worthwhile.

(2) Actually, you need lots of people involved in the social network, which serves as the "database" of the social networking application. They don't have to use the particular application, much less be interested in the particular set of APIs on which the application is built; and (3) Lots of people can be not interested in something (the supposed 50 million Facebook "developers") and still have lots of other people interested in it. "Lots of people aren't interested in X" does not imply the falsity of "lots of people are interested in X".


Uhhh.... What? Sure, if you can find 50 million users outside of Facebook who are interested in OpenSocial, it might work. But I think it's pretty obvious that if 50 million Facebook users aren't going to switch over, there's not much of a market share left for OpenSocial, especially since people who are joining a social network for the first time will most likely join the one that most of their friends are on, i.e., Facebook.

Certainly not while you are doing that; outside of that time, social networking functionality would be useful to just that kind of group, too.
My point is, social networking applications are most useful to connect with those you don't associate with the most on a normal basis. If I need a social networking application to keep track of what my best friends are up to, it really is a sad state of affairs for me.

So? What does that have to do with OpenSocial APIs? Your friends don't have to use the OpenSocial APIs, or even applications built with them, for them to be part of the network you access if you use them. You seem to be confusing social networks with social networking applications and with social networking technologies and confusing developers with users.
First of all, I can care less about developers. It is the users who make the applications important, and honestly, Facebook would be better off without "developers."

And yes, my friends do have to be in the OpenSocial data store in order to be part of my network, and I'm not going to find any of my old friends in OpenSocial apps if they're only using Facebook. In order for it to be useful, they have to put their information into OpenSocial.

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21243315)

I don't think you're reading what's being said here. OpenSocial isn't a social network like Facebook, and it's not meant to compete with or replace Facebook, or MySpace, or whatever social network is currently the "hip" thing. OpenSocial is a standard design that people who write applications for things like Facebook can use to allow their applications to be used all over the place. If Facebook, MySpace, etc. all included support for OpenSocial, and the developers used that to develop their applications (widgets might be a more appropriate term, application I think implies more functionality than most of these things actually have) using OpenSocial, then they can all inter operate with each other and different social networks.

So, in short, OpenSocial neither needs nor wants the support of regular users, it's looking for the support of the social network developers (both internal to places like Facebook and MySpace, and external such as the ones making "applications" for Facebook).

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (1)

damaki (997243) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241335)

Nothing's more useful than the useless.

Re:fifty million Facebook developers (2, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241783)

It's "fifty million Facebook users ... " not developers.

Facebook Developers (5, Funny)

onion2k (203094) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240801)

There aren't 50 million Facebook developers. It only seems that way because there's 50 million 'really awesome super dooper wall' applications.

Re:Facebook Developers (3, Informative)

cradle (1442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240901)

If you follow the link, you'll see that what he really said was "There are 50 million Facebook users who don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care." [emphasis mine]

Re:Facebook Developers (3, Funny)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241085)

I think that we should judge all our projects by this huge knowledge base, for if 50 million facebook uses don't know what something is, then it is a complete waste of time.

Re:Facebook Developers (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241349)

I always knew those apostrophe things were a waste of time.

Hang on - let's count em (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21242109)

Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!! Developers Developers Developers Developers!!! DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!! DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DVLPERS DEVEELPRS VPLRES!!! VBBEPRS!!! AAAARGH!!!!! ....

Well respected? (5, Funny)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240803)

well-respected members of the Microsoft blogging community
Oxymoron?

Re:Well respected? (4, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241421)

well-respected members of the Microsoft blogging community

  Oxymoron?


Where did you get "oxy" from? ;)

Uhm, Troll? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21242171)

I'm not new here, but +5 Funny for this Troll still seems like a new intellectual low for /. moderation.

New Redmond Ploy (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240865)

It might be just me, but there seems to be an awful lot of blog posts coming from Redmond employees these days based on the new tactic of "If we get enough people banging on our blogs and rubbishing it enough, and then claim that we're the victims in all of this when someone raises a valid point, maybe people will believe that it's true!"

Users != Developers (4, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240897)

Facebook does not have 50 million developers. It has 50 million users. Active developers are an incredibly small minority within that community.

Or are you saying that Miss take-a-self-portrait-at-arms-length-on-her-cell-phone is a developer because she knows how to post a picture as her background?

Re:Users != Developers (3, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241047)

Indeed, and the differentiation between users and developers is critical in this case. Basically, most users don't care about APIs and open standards and such (until, of course, the day they try to migrate all their perfectly tagged photos from one site to another... and discover they can't).

The developers are the ones who might care about APIs and open standards. Now, I'll admit that some casual developers of Facebook widgets don't care too much about portability and open standards. But, I would guess that many (most?) developers of social widgets do care about such things. As a developer, why would you want your work to be coupled to a single site, which is not under your control? Most programmers would prefer to have the ability to move their code from place to place, and for their widgets/applications to be accessible to as many people as possible (otherwise, why are they releasing it in the first place?).

So whereas users might not care about these things, I think many programmers/developers are going to be more interested in working on OpenSocial tools and widgets, rather than contributing to a walled garden that they have no control over. (E.g. Facebook can come up with a tightly-coupled widget that completely replaces your pet project.)

If the developers care, they could certainly shift the balance of power towards OpenSocial. Users may not care about APIs and open standards, but they certainly do care about awesome widgets, the ability to link with a large and growing social network, and (perhaps most importantly) the ability to migrate their current profile into this new network. If everyone except Facebook (for instance) is part of this OpenSocial network, then Facebook users will indeed be annoyed that they cannot interact with the cool toys everyone else is playing with.

Re:Users != Developers (1, Troll)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242015)

Or are you saying that Miss take-a-self-portrait-at-arms-length-on-her-cell-phone is a developer because she knows how to post a picture as her background?

That sounds very much like a Redmond definition of developer to me.

Json again (0)

oliderid (710055) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240905)

I tend to agree with microsoft developpers.

Json may be the right solution if you are web developpers working on javascript and all but for most projects it is just a tiny part of the development. For anything unrelated to this Ajax frenzy. It stinks.

Look at the relatively simple XML based solution provided by facebook...All you need is to look at the XML example and that's it, you get it. Then look at the rather complex solution provided by google for a similar service.

I had to choose between the yahoo API (xml based) and Google Json months ago. After days of struggling with this Json nightmare (server based application, not an HTML embedded script language), i left google and took the yahoo API instead.

Google is trying too hard to push is own agenda. It wants to be the only one proposing a real technologies. Third party developpers must use basic/vulnerable/volatile HTML script language.

In a way Google is doing the same than Microsoft web services (windows live or something)...They did their best to make it incompatible with non-windows technology.

Re:Json again (3, Insightful)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241089)

I'm not sure what exactly your point with this is, but I'd like to contribute some interesting facts. First, JSON isn't a Google thing. In fact, it was created by a Yahoo employee (Douglas Crockford), and is an open standard which is available as RFC4627. Having worked with JSON in the past, it's a much simpler, and much lighter markup language than XML (yes, that's right, it's a markup language, nothing more, just like XML, and HTML). I'm not certain how google is using JSON in their API, but in my experience deciding to use JSON over XML is probably a smart idea, as JSON is much more compact, and much easier to write (a lot less typing) and can easily represent all the standard data constructs available in almost any language.

If you want to bash the design of Googles API versus Yahoos that's fine, but please don't confuse the issue by saying JSON is somehow more complicated than XML, as that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Simplicity (1)

Tony (765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241623)

JSON is all about simplicity. It's trivial to write a JSON parser in any language that has first-class support for hashed variables. That is, all languages.

XML might be a better markup language for complicated documents. However, it sucks for exchanging data structures.

I think the difference is that between a strongly-typed language and a dynamically-typed language. XML has support for strong typing and structure verification. JSON is designed to work with languages like Javascript, Perl, Python, PHP, and the like-- which all have support for dynamic typing. So maybe the differences in opinion lie between developers who like the straitjacket (and algorithmic purity) of a strongly-typed language, and those who like the flexibility and simplicity of a dynamically-typed language.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I think the GP post might be referring to a preference in the matter.

Re:Simplicity (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241937)

I've worked with some of the JS to Java AJAX bridges in the past that used JSON for the RPC communication and they usually add an extra "class" field to the JSON data to help serialize between the prototype based JS and the class based Java. It actually works very well, but has one catch that you can't have a property named class on either the JS or Java side of things or it mucks up the serialization.

I think his issue is more to do with a misunderstanding of the different technologies involved here. He seems to be confused between the "widgets" that googles API is designed for (embeddable in web pages, essentially small JS and HTML snippets with AJAX connections to backend servers) and the "widgets" that yahoos API is designed for (run inside a client side sandbox, xml widget layout, JS code for logic/RPC). Most of googles stuff is designed to plug into either their customized homepage, or be dropped onto a server and run in a web browser (like the google maps code). Yahoo on the other hand acquired Konfabulator which is a desktop client designed to function as a plugin framework for small widgets. That's the big difference, one is a scriptable rich client, and the other is basically traditional webapp development.

Re:Json again (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242351)

It's not entirely fair to compare XML to JSON. Something like XML-RPC would be better. XML-RPC defines a load of basic types (strings, integers, floats, dates) and some compound types (structures and arrays). It is semantically almost identical to JSON (although it also provides RPC functions). If you compare JSON to XML-RPC markup of the same document, you will see that the JSON markup is a lot simpler. Which is more easily readable is largely a matter of experience.

Re:Json again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21242495)

So what if its common\less typing. Has it ever occurred to you that it sucks? Javascript is one of the biggest screwups in programming language history. If you can replace that with a simple language that can be VALIDATED and have juicy object oriented solid code on a server back end instead of crappy, slow, error ridden client side scripting that would be a GOOD THING.

AJAX SUCKS.

Re:Json again (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21243053)

Once more there's confusion here. JSON is not JavaScript, any more than XML is. JSON was modeled somewhat after the JavaScript syntax, but it's considered a markup in its own right, and there are parsers available for it in many languages either out of the box (PHP), or as external libraries (Java, Ruby, etc.). JavaScript is a language like many others, and like any language it's possible to write very bad code in it. If you think strong typing will prevent that you're wrong (I've personally seen people write some very very bad code in Java).

AJAX exists because of a need that isn't being met. It's an attempt to fill that need and really has nothing to do with JavaScript other than that's the tool that was provided to get the job done. Like it or not, every web browser out there supports JavaScript, and the only other alternative out there with even as little as 40% of the browser market is VB (and then only if you're using IE and Windows). Do I think AJAX is wrong? Partially. I think that people are pushing browsers too far, trying to make them do things that they aren't really designed for. I think we need a new kind of browser to sit along side the web browser, not to replace it. In addion to http: which is handled by traditional web browsers, I think we need a app: or something similar handled by a "app browser" that's designed from the ground up to handle application development. The key to making the whole system work though is it needs to be a open standard not owned by any one company. If Google, or Microsoft, or even Mozilla Foundation get their hands on the standard and become the voice for it people won't want to adopt it because it will be used to bundle all kinds of things and lock people in to a particular vendor. We need HTML/CSS/JavaScript but done for applications this time. HTML was created for documents, and it's done very well in that regard, but we need something more, something for applications, and that's where we need to branch out and make something new.

Of course, most of this is terribly off-topic at this point, but since you brought up client side scripting and AJAX I'd figure I'd put this out here.

Re:Json again (1)

hey (83763) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242123)

The Facebook API let's you (the developer) pick between JSON or XML.

Fifty million DEVELOPERS? (0, Redundant)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240907)

Maybe Facebook has fifty million USERS. It's true most of them wouldn't care about Google's new API; most of them won't be writing a lick of code. They'll certainly be willing to incorporate pre-made widgets into their pages, though, which makes the question whether Google's API will produce neater widgets than Facebook's proprietary one.

Re:Fifty million DEVELOPERS? (2, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241007)

No they don't. They have 50 million -accounts- which completely fails to be the same thing.

Some of these are held by people who have two or more accounts. Some are held by spammers, and a great many are held by people who at some point or other signed up out of curisoity, but haven't actually used the site even once the last month. These aren't "users" of the service.

Re:Fifty million DEVELOPERS? (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241311)

Even the Weighted Companion Cube [facebook.com] has 16 accounts. What an attention whore! So much for being faithful...

At least he's never threatened to stab me.
=Smidge=

Re:Fifty million DEVELOPERS? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242423)

50 million is a very low number. For reference; the UK population is 60 million. In 2006, 51% of the population had some kind of Internet connection. This gives around 30 million internet users in the UK, and every single one of them has email. The 50 million facebook accounts number probably equates to about this number of global facebook users.

Think about that for a second. Email is the oldest social network on the Internet, and it has as many users in the UK as Facebook has in the world.

Wow (2, Insightful)

insllvn (994053) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240911)

"Dare Osabanjo because in his view OpenSocial while billed as a standardized widget platform for the Web, actually isn't." Did Microsoft really just criticize Google for creating a non-standardized standard? What?

Re:Wow (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241651)

No. Dare Obasanjo did. I realise that automatically distinguishing between a person writing on his blog and a multinational corporation may be difficult, but I'd have thought it was maybe easier when the bottom of the post reads:

This post does not reflect the opinions, thoughts, strategies or future intentions of my employer. These are solely my personal opinions. If you are seeking official position statements from Microsoft, please go here.

I'll play devil's advocate... (0)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240935)

...and agree with TFA. OpenSocial will be nothing more than a Google version of Facebook, and I'm not sure I want that, or that any significant amount of people will switch over. And besides, the only thing worse than a 5% MS Facebook is a 100% Google Facebook.

Re:I'll play devil's advocate... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241013)

I don't want Facebook either, so it is even.

Re:I'll play devil's advocate... (2, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241707)

OpenSocial will be nothing more than a Google version of Facebook, and I'm not sure I want that, or that any significant amount of people will switch over.


OpenSocial isn't a social networking website. If Google had a version of Facebook, I would guess it would be Orkut, which is Google's social networking website. But OpenSocial is a set of technologies that several social networking websites -- including MySpace, which has more users than Facebook -- are committed to supporting.

Re:I'll play devil's advocate... (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242179)

Well, I think TFA made a pretty good case that the OpenSocial API is functionally the equivalent of the Facebook API. Maybe OpenSocial is simply a standard (or whatever), but realistically it is nothing more than another networking service that is consumed by multiple web applications, rather than a networking service that is consumed by a single web application.

In other news... (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21240997)

Google has supposedly found a cure for Facebook addiction. Participants in a study responded 2 to 1 over placebo in favor of OpenSocial.

All kidding aside, we've all heard these "killer app", "[insert popular toy] killer" stories before. I'm sure it has some advantages over Facebook in many respects. But give it a year or so and we'll see if this is the app that ends Facebook. Considering all the hype is coming from blogs of Google developers, I have to take this with a grain of salt.

Re:In other news... (1)

jpfed (1095443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241717)

It's not an app(lication)- it's an API (applications programming interface). It makes it so that social sites can present to third-party developers a common interface for development. OpenSocial itself is not a competitor to Facebook. It is even a logical possibility that Facebook adopt the OpenSocial API; this talk of OpenSocial "versus" Facebook is merely due to the historical accident that Facebook has not adopted it yet, and many Facebook competitors have.

Googles hidden motive (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241125)

While its a good idea Google are only doing it for one reason. All that time you spend on Facebook and MySpace is time that could be better spent looking at ads. If they come up with the facility for you to do your social stuff without leaving their site or gmail or whatever thats more money for them.

No one knows what it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241167)

And at one time no one had heard of this thing called DOS....

So Much Kool-Aid... (1)

x_Curious_x (1068840) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241171)

Why any web developer or widget creator out there who would limit their WEB audience because they favor 1 API over another baffles me. There are several large networks out there moving to open up even more of their audiences to us, so why do I care if one API uses JSON, FBML(its cute but I stay with tried and true HTML on that one), XML, ATOM feeds, and etc. At the end of the day Open Social strikes at proprietary web platforms and allows a widget/web application developer to focus on marketing and spreading their wares instead of worrying about keeping up with multiple web platforms to develop for.

What's standardized anyway? (1)

internetcommie (945194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241183)

It might be correct that OpenSocial isn't a standardized widget platform, but neither is Facebook. Having 50 million users doesn't make anything a standard, as Microsoft should know the hard way after the Vista release.

MS talks, Google walks (3, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241199)

Sure MS employees are going to take shots at Google services. But even if they're not perfect, Google is getting the services out there and putting the tools out there. While MS blogs about it. I'm sure MS will eventually field some Windows-centric competitive product...just as soon as they get done blogging about how bad Google is.

Re:MS talks, Google walks (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241671)

But isn't this how MS works anyway? Someone else comes up with idea, MS poo-poohs it, then comes out with their own version, which thanks to their market penetration is taken up by a large user base? It seems MS lets a lot of other people get a head start, so they can see how an application trends before committing larger resources to it. On the one hand brilliant -- on the other hand, pretty nefarious.

Re:MS talks, Google walks (3, Insightful)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241843)

And to go along with their usual naming convention they'll call it "Microsoft Social Network"... wait til it's an abysmal failure then rename it to "Microsoft Live Friends & Family" and integrate it into the Windows profile somehow.

ATTN: slashdot "editors" (-1, Troll)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241451)

Why are we listening to a guy named "Osabanjo"? That sounds like the kind of name a terrorist would have. A bluegrass-playing, cousin-marrying terrorist.

Wrong Name (1)

a1terego (912274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241743)

I think it's "Dare Obasanjo" not "Dare Osabanjo" ... and no, I am pretty sure he doesn't play the banjo. not many Nigerians do.

Re:ATTN: slashdot "editors" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21241873)

Actually, he used to be a Slashdot regular under the name Carnage4Life. I remember him posting about starting at Microsoft.

I'm sure we're all shocked, shocked! (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241509)

Who would believe that Microsoft is denigrating a competing standard? What's next? Toyota comparing their trucks to others? Household cleansers claiming to work better than the leading brand?

This could lead to a calamity of Biblical proportions: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes. The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

FUD filter anyone? (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241541)

Is it just me, or is anyone else conditioned to just ignore anything Microsoft's cronies have to say about competing products as FUD?

The Social Networking Fad is Dying (1)

johnsie (1158363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241543)

Only stalkers and people who can't get chicks use those sites!!

Is it now assumed Microsoft = Facebook? (3, Insightful)

mikemuch (870535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241555)

I haven't seen the comment made anywhere that perhaps the real motivation for the bit OpenSocial announcement could be that Google lost the bidding war for a stake in Facebook. This could explain MS's lack of interest in creating a cross-SN API, though I can't picture them doing that anyway, except maybe as an option in their dev tools.

Re:Is it now assumed Microsoft = Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21242359)

Remember the timing. Microsoft only just won the bidding war. As much as I respect their intellect and flexibility, I highly doubt that Google would come up with this idea and implementation in a week. It'd be a negligent thing to do- to release an immature API, and that's a Microsoft trait- not a Google one.

My thinking was that Google should have had a limited interest in buying part of Facebook anyway. Facebook's profits are minimal, and users have been quite unhappy lately with some recent feature introductions. I personally hate all the "application SPAM" I get, with acquaintances trying to get me to rate them and answer asinine questions.

I think Google just got in the bidding war to freak out Ballmer and make Microsoft get scared enough to up their bidding and waste a shitload of cash on a non-controlling (read "non-influencing") share of the company.

The icing on the cake would be that Google had been developing OpenSocial for a while now, more than just the last week (when the Microsoft-Facebook deal closed) and timed the release to coincide, knowing the financial press and tech blogs would go nuts (which would in turn makes Ballmer throw chairs).

This is merely speculation of an outsider with no history in financial analysis, but it certainly did give me a good laugh.

-- NHMK

plogs, not blogs (2, Interesting)

paiute (550198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241653)

When someone is paid to sit at work and comment on their web log about the competition, it is no longer a 'blog but a paid web log, or 'plog.

Re:plogs, not blogs (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241757)

When someone is paid to sit at work and comment on their web log about the competition, it is no longer a 'blog but a paid web log, or 'plog.


Also, when they are doing paid blogging about the competition, they are no longer developers, but instead marketing drones.

Re:plogs, not blogs (1)

mscherotter (67370) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242023)

I know that i'm not a "Heavy Hitter" like Dare, but I tried out OpenSocial this weekend and I saw something very interesting. I am also a Microsoft employee and I am paid to blog: Silverlight in OpenSocial! [msdn.com]
I thought that Dare wrote a very thoughtful analysis of OpenSocial but I wanted to get my hands dirty with it and see what I could do.

Michael S. Scherotter [msdn.com]
Microsoft Corporation

OpenID yet? No? Damn! (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241731)

I'll link to my other comment [slashdot.org] on this issue.

Basically, I'm still kind of bitter about Google releasing a standard that, well, doesn't seem much better than Facebook. For it to truly be open, you have to allow users, not just website admins, to choose other services than Google.

I can connect with Gmail people from any email server, because they talk SMTP. I can connect with Google Talk people from any Jabber server. I cannot connect with OpenSocial/Orkut people from any other authentication/profile server than Google's.

OpenID has already solved that problem. It doesn't do all the social networking stuff -- yet -- but it was a start. I don't really care if you throw it out and make up your own standard, so long as you have at least that basic level of functionality.

Did people actually read the articles? (3, Interesting)

gaindev (1114377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241765)

Did a few people actually read the articles before they commented? I think the two articles raised a few interesting points.



The one from Don Dodge pointed out the most important fact that Facebook's success is based on its users' loyalty to the service. Do they really care about applications? Most of them dont care that much. If one developer leaves, there will be plenty of others who will do same thing, even better.



The second article looks at OpenSocial from technical perspective. It compared the two set of APIs to see whether facebook's or opensocial is better technically. OpenSocial should be seen as FREE APIs rather than "open" (which generally regarded as good, no evil) APIs. These APIs are owned and administered by Google, which they can withdraw anytime they want as with Google Map APIs.



Having said that, it's still interesting to watch the battle bw facebook and "the new microsoft" :D

Stamping feet, and shaking fists... on both sides? (2, Insightful)

aeroseth (228594) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242403)

Wow, is jg21 taking a jab at Dare Obasanjo by calling him Dare Osabanjo? Maybe it was just a typo, but I digress.
Dare seems to present his thoughts in a well written manner and doesn't seem to be ranting, so I dismiss jg21's one liner to describe Dare's article as a cheap shot. I'm no fan of Microsoft but if Google can learn from Microsoft's developers (hint, hint, free secrets about Microsoft's strategy) to make Google's API better then why not. However Don Dodge's comments are exactly the kind of "Na-na-na, naa-naa-naaaa", "in your face" kind of bullet-point ranting I'd expect from a Microsoft developer.

In any case this topic is sure to get more press here then it's worth, even my time spent commenting on it seems to be a total waste now that I think about it.

Seth

Google is acting more like Microsoft (1)

wicka (985217) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242431)

The whole OpenSocial idea just reminds me of something Microsoft would do. Facebook is out there, it's great, people love it, and now Google is making their own version (well I guess they already have Orkut, but yeah) that will most likely be universally ignored. Microsoft does this over and over just to gain a foothold in every market. The only difference is that this will be one of the few times for Google that no one cares (whereas Microsoft is quite used to that).

Sys-con hosting more FUD: remembering the past (3, Informative)

merc (115854) | more than 6 years ago | (#21243069)

Consider the source folks, this is the same online rag that hosts Maureen O'Gara articles. For those that aren't familiar with "MoG" she a SCO shill with an extreme anti-IBM bias that stalked Groklaw's PJ, posted her personal information and other sorts of gossipy crap which SYS-CON happily published. MoG is also the last holdout that believes the SCO lies (and who is, coincidentally, owed money by SCO as is shown in the bankruptcy debtors list).

At one time SYS-CON promised to get rid of MOG, right after a mass exodus by SYS-CON writers in protest over what was called a gross violation of professional ethics. Later in an interview for Free Software Magazine [freesoftwaremagazine.com] , Fuat Kircaali, CEO of Sys-Con, stated he felt Maureen did nothing wrong. Today they still let her secretly write pro-SCO rubbish, and in some cases outright incorrect information under a pen name.

Anyone who consideres SYS-CON an authoritive source of IT information would be better off reading eweek or TheOnion for that matter. Sys-Con has some sort of agenda and are (at least in my opinion) serving interests other than Free or Open source software.

Sour grapes. (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21243121)

Microsoft is losing on the web. Microsoft is unable to compete. So what do they do? They whine.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>