Josh Constatine at TechCrunch does not think so. He guesses that Facebook’s new aggregration as “trending” is the new culprit. His main piece is argument is the precipitous decline inconsistent with a mass exodus. But in fact, such declines, aka “jumping the shark“, are highly common in low engagement but viral apps.

But if Facebook was seeing such tremendous click through rates from friends of social reader users, why would they shut the social readers down? Facebook must have seen something else very troubling in their data: mass uninstalling from sharers. I believe that they are trying to protect users from over-sharing, in order to preserve the dream of frictionless sharing.

No doubt their actions to limit the exposure has increased the decline of traffic, but the root cause must undoubtable be based on high install rates. And no doubt developers must understand that Facebook will open and shut viral channels to balance the interests of both sharers and their friends.

We must stop SOPA and PIPA, two proposed pieces of legislation that would serious undermine our freedom of expression.

If these laws pass, essentially anyone would have the right to shut down my companies web site, www.tips.by, merely because it hosts shared content on an overseas web site. I am part of a tech community that is innovating and creating new jobs.

As a father of four children, I oppose this legislation that further criminalizes sharing. I am pro-sharing.

As a founder of e-thePeople, I think that sharing of information is the cornerstone of democracy. It’s called the first amendment, because it is the fundamental right that protects all others.

Sign Google’s petition here: https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/

Spread the word on Facebook & Twitter. Black out your profile image too before the government does.

1. Inherently mobile use cases
2. Context ver content
3. Real-time, immediate utility
4. Simplicity
5. Frequent usage
6. Inherently viral
7. Massive scale possibility
8. Natural business model
9. Cross-platform with mobile integral
10. Take full advantage of iphone platform

There is a ~8min portion that is definitely worth watching starting at about 14 minutes into this lecture at Stanford on iTunes U. Enjoy!

A lot of the innovative “circles” for groups on Google+ stem from this concept. Based on interest, geography and life stage, you have different circles of friends that you want to exchange different information with. Fair enough.

But embedded into Google+ is the notion that you want to have all of these circles on a single platform. But if this diagram is to be believed, each of these circles has little or no overlap. So what’s the benefit of merging your online lives?

In contrast, there are lots of costs associated with a single platform. Complex privacy. Harder to innovate in each specialized social network space. Greater exposure to the risk of privacy violations. In other words, I think that the very analysis done to spark Google+ has the data to show that multiple platforms will serve people better than one unified platform.

[Hat tip to Rebecca Tadikonda for the inspiration for the title of this post.]

Still, I think it may be too ambitious though, which will eventually cause it have unworkable privacy issues. They want to provide a master social network, which requires a complex, granular privacy model. They have created such a privacy model with the “circles” implementation of groups.

However, my thesis is that consumers will opt to belong to have 6-12 specialized social networks each for a specific content or activity vertical. For example, FB for photos, twitter for interests, linkedin for resumes, zynga for games, SocialFeet for commerce [disclaimer:I am a founder], etc. Each of these networks will have appropriate (but highly differentiated) privacy models, and users will basically adopt the default privacy model for each in a binary yes/no decision. As Fred Wilson blogs:

You either want to be totally public or totally private, but never sort of private and sort of public. It’s just too complicated to be semi-private. That middle ground is treacherous.

Could it be the one social network to rule them all? Fairly unlikely. My guess of what happens to google plus: it gets co-opted by some geography (like urkut) or vertical segment and becomes a niche social network of some sort that survives. So far, the most interesting segment is about google itself (like Sergey Brin’s kite boarding pics from Alaska) and the twitter-like public discussions.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially as Google continues to experiment with social at such a large scale.

What is that I want to do in this bubble? As I said, in this one, the valuations are not going to be based on concepts. I think they are going to be based on either large networks of 10s or 100s of millions of users, or they’ll be be based on high revenue growth, or maybe a combination thereof. I would use the money to buy scale as quickly as possible. I would use the money to buy visible as quickly as possible. Not for BS, but to promote the first two items. And that’s an opportunity that can easily be squandered if you don’t think about it strategically. The goal in this bubble is to be the largest possible business, not to become boo.com. Boy if you are smart entrepreneur with a big pile of cash, I believe you can engineer a liquidity event from God.

Here’s the entire video, cued to the right spot. Enjoy!

As Bill rightly points out, direct assaults on Google by land look pretty hopeless. It looks pretty dark for direct competitors like Bing. It also creates collateral damage by destroying any business that wants to make money building a phone operating system or browser. But does that mean the castle is perfectly defended?

I believe that Google has a massive vulnerability, but it isn’t from a direct search competitor. Essentially, Facebook is substitute for search, not a direct competitor. As people discover products and services socially, they will go directly from intent to purchase–bypassing search entirely. This threat is not theoretical; indeed, one of customers at SocialFeet has truly zeroed its SEM budget in 2011. While dramatic, I think this move is a leading indicator of where smart merchants are moving. If so, this is very bad news for Google’s adwords castle.

This dynamic is an air attack, and Google’s castle, despite its incredible land moat, looks entirely defenseless against it.

It turns out that social networks like Facebook “are not structurally well-suited to be networks of sellers,” according to a fascinating study done at Columbia (download pdf). The problem? Social networks like Facebook and Twitter end up being too clustered. When I click on a high school classmate from Hunter, I inevitably find that we have 60+ friends in common.

Why is this a problem? If you start traversing the social graph from my profile, you’ll likely to get stuck in a Hunter cul-de-sac. I love my classmates, but after a while, it’s a deadend that eventually gets boring. And empirically data from a social shopping site in France support this explanation.

The solution is to foster a network that looks more like a web than a cluster. More links are better, but you want to make sure that they take to different places. In my opinion, this structure can be induced through proper incentives, but it does not occur naturally. Herein lies the opportunity.

But it is likely to be tricky, because such “strategic attempts to alter a social network’s structure can lead to unintended consequences.” Unfortunately, the researchers don’t provide much detail into what alternative incentives are worth trying or what consequences they are concerned about.

Since the opportunity involves creating a new network, it seems to me that it is not only large but defensible. A difficult problem, perhaps, but what a nut if you can crack it! Given how different it is than building a global social network, I think it is one that Facebook is unlikely to crack by itself.

1. The most transformational ideas are crazy. I mean, reach the far east by going *west*?
2. The funding for most grand discoveries often comes from angels, who do so for commercial reasons principally
3. You will probably discover something different than what you originally set out to find (and it may take awhile before you figure out what it is that you’ve discovered!)
4. Even when you find something amazing, you won’t necessarily end up rich

Draw your own conclusions!

- scalability was perhaps the central concern in the early days. Zuckerberg clearly understood the lesson of friendster
- Zuckerberg was very explicit about having profiles represent real people. Identity warranting is a key value of Facebook today IMO
- the launch of the photos application within Facebook is fascinating. Two core features of photo sites were — and still are — left out: high res versions and the ability to order prints.
Zuckerberg bet that social photos with tags were what people really wanted and he was right. More photos are viewed on Facebook thten all other sites combined. Photos are truly the killer app.
- the newsfeed was incredibly controversial. Zuckerberg bravely stuck to his guns because he saw the site engagement skyrocket even as 10% of the site protested the new feature!!
- Zuckerberg is supremely confident. He is not swayed but money — he turned away a $10mm offer only 4 months after founding Facebook at age 20 and has since turned down multi-billion offers. He marches to his own beat, and has control of the board of Facebook.
- Zuckerberg is ambivalent about ads and it shows. The second half of the book is blah, because Facebook has neither been wildly successful nor a complete failure at making money. This story remains unfinished IMO.

I am immensely impressed by Mark Zuckerberg. He has gone ‘all in’ perhaps 3 times with innovative and controversial features that have revolutionized the web and society. He has executed extremely well where many others tried and failed.

I eagerly await the next chapter as it unfolds! As well as the movie soon to be released, ‘the social Network’, with its fictionalized account of the human drama behind Facebook. UPDATE: It sounds that the movie is a start contrast to the book. The movie is entertaining but totally misses any of the real points of Facebook.

So, here is the google alphabet as of today on my computer (while logged out of google):

a - aol (then amazon, aim, apple)
b - bank of america (best buy, bing, bed bath and beyond)
c - craigslist (chase, cnn, costco)
d - dictionary (droid x, dell, drake)
e - ebay (espn, expedia, eminem)
f - facebook (facebook login, fifa, fandango)
g - gmail (google maps, google.com, glee)
h - hotmail (hulu, homedepot, hostop)
i - ikea (iphone, imdb, inception)
j - jetblue (jet blue, jfk, jersey shore)
k - kmart (kayak, kohls, katy perry)
l - lirr (lowes, lost, linkedin)
m - mapquest (myspace, msn, mta)
n - netflix (nj transit, new york times, nordstrom)
o - orbitz (oovoo, old navy, optonline.net)
p - pandora (paypal, petco, people)
q - quotes (qvc, queens college, quest diagnostics)
r - realtor (rite aid, run, radio shack)
s - staples (sears, skype, sprint)
t - target (twitter, td bank, ticketmaster)
u - ups (usps, utube, univision)
v - verizon (verizon wireless, victoria secret, vlc)
w - weather (walmart, white pages, wikipedia)
x - xbox (xm radio, xe, xkcd)
y - yahoo (youtube, yahoo mail, yelp)
z - z100 (zappos, zilllow, zip codes)
1 - 105.1 (1010 wins, 103.5, 101.5)
2 - 2010 calendar (24, 2012, 25 to life lyrics)
3 - 311 (30 rock, 3ds, 3m)
4 - 4chan (411, 4th of july, 4shared)
5 - 50 cent (50 cent weight loss, 500 days of summer, 5 guys)
6 - 60 minutes (6pm, 6th ave, 6 flags)
7 - 7zip (7online, 7chan, 7 eleven)
8 - 8 mile (80’s music, 800 flowers, 808 drum)
9 - 92.3 (97.1, 90210, 92nd street y)
0 - 007 (0, 02, 0-60 times, 06880)
@ - @kingjames (@font-face, @live.com, @bpglobalpr)
& - &nbsp (&lt, &, &hearts, &amp)
. - .net (.rar, .net framework, .mkv)
-,+,!,#,$,*+,=,{,},|,[,],\,?,/,<,> — “your search did not match any documents”

Apparently these results are supposed to be based on frequencies of past queries, with some sort of time element too, and surprisingly to me, your physical location. In other words, the alphabet according to google may evolve over time–a new element of the “google dance”.

Some quick impressions:
- don’t expect to win the letter “g” easily! droid x also looks like intentional self-promotion
- who is katy perry? what is xe?
- some interesting local results: mta, 1010 wins, queens college, nj transit, 6th ave
- potentially “dangerous” results: 4chan
- some shoutouts to competitors: bing, .net, twitter, facebook, etc.

I have to say that the feature can be a little bit distracting too, but I suppose that is part of the point. In any event, very interesting. Go to Google.com to check it for yourself, and please comment if you find anything interesting in your google alphabet.

Actually, it reminds me most about pickup ball in NYC. Pickup ball had a few key rules to determine who could play. First, winners stay on, losers leave. Second, one person had “next,” and was responsible for forming a team to play the winners. Third, anyone who wasn’t playing or included on a “next” team could become the leader of claim the next “next” team, and so on.

The interesting dynamic is that sometimes a good player would forgo the opportunity to play “next” because they preferred to sit out a little longer in order to play with their friends and form a really great team of their own choosing. In the long run, this strategy could lead to a winning streak that yielded more court time despite the longer wait to start.

In effect, Wade and Bosh have claimed “next.” And heaven help the other teams in the NBA if LeBron joins too!

computer science undergrad from MIT (or any other great school), 2-years at McKinsey but no more than that (I love the analytical framework that the top strategy consulting firms provide. BCG, Bain, LEK – they’re all great), a few years at a start-up or a few years somewhere like Microsoft, Google, Amazon or Apple. MBA fine, but not required.

Compare that profile to my background: Computer science at Princeton, 3 years at Oliver Wyman (top strategy consultancy to the financial services), Fulcrum Analytics/E-thePeople.org (e.g., start ups), Ph.D. at Stanford. Looks pretty good, at least on paper, right? Right?!? :)

Enjoy!