It’s ironic, how ‘ease’ becomes the noose that chokes innovation and development. AOL, Facebook, iTunes, they all offer closed, proprietary solutions to ‘problems’ that — in more ways than one — are not so hard to solve. Solutions that seem to ‘work’, that ‘succeed’ because the ‘trend’ is to embrace ‘easy’, as opposed to ‘moderately challenging’, because the ‘smart money’ is behind them and because of network effects.

In the last few years, that is after the wave of ‘Web 2.0′ (ironically, yet another ‘trend’ exploited by ‘experts’ that abused it for profit) subsided, Facebook started making serious money. Its real success as an advertising platform is not only arguably minimal, but quite controversial. It took a long time for the advertising industry and the hordes of marketing monkeys to embrace Facebook’s walled garden approach and doing what they do best, counting. Only this time it wasn’t ‘impressions’ or ‘clicks’ or ‘conversions’ they were counting, but ‘likes’, another frivolous metric that doesn’t really mean anything in the real world. Facebook apps, once touted as the next big thing and a threat for the web, were stillborn, largely because Facebook itself made significant steps to expand beyond the confines of its site, by creating interfaces, programmatic and user, for other platform-owners to embed in or integrate with their platforms. So we got a slew of ‘social plugins’, more ‘APIs’, etc. But there were some exceptions, like Zynga, a gaming company living inside Facebook.

Now, Zynga just launched Zynga.com. And it’s a big deal, because this is the first Facebook-dependent business of significant scale that expands beyond the confines of this walled garden du jour.

The whole ‘frenzy’ with Facebook in the ad world is now in its third year. As with AOL’s endeavours fifteen years ago, the Facebook frenzy may be past its prime; as a teenager of the early-to-mid 1990s, AOL ‘keywords’ seemed to me like a pointless exercise, yet another ‘top-down’, force-fed business model that people never cared about.

Clearly people care about Facebook; they care about the platform that connects them to people they love: their friends and their relationships, news from their social circles, people they’d like to know better or simply keep in touch. They could hardly care less about Facebook pages, Facebook ads, the Facebook business. Sadly, marketers and advertisers, typically the last group to perceive change — and perhaps the most dependent on ‘convention’ (make no mistake, Facebook is convention, as is Google), will take a bit longer to ‘wake up’. That Zynga chose to move beyond Facebook is undoubtedly a wake up call and a sign of maturity in an industry that more than often adopts the strategy of others, instead of coming up with its own.

Facebook has become to the social web what Microsoft is to the desktop: mindbogglingly gargantuan, relentlessly mediocre, and almost inescapable. Like Microsoft twenty years ago, they will succeed because a bad standard is better than none: and like Microsoft ten years ago, they “innovate” by clumsily copying—and then trying to squash—the real innovators.

writes Jon Evans in the linked article on TechCrunch.

I find Facebook infinitely more dangerous: Microsoft established itself among a number of proprietary, closed and obscure desktop platforms. Facebook, on the other hand, threatens to engulf and absorb the Web, probably the most open, most amazing development in computing, ever. The path to openness is hard — we need standards, modelling of semantics and relationships, but above all good implementations making use thereof. Facebook provides an easy, ‘closed’ alternative, as does twitter and a number of other services building upon their proprietary protocols and interfaces. That’s why FOAF and OpenSocial are nowhere to be found and everyone (including us) uses Facebook widgets. Again the age-old saying: “ideas are cheap, implementations cost” rings true, and Facebook have a more popular implementation, like Microsoft did back in its heyday.

I’m sure not too many within the Facebook userbase share my disdain for closed, proprietary networks yet it is not surprising that a significant number of erstwhile facebook fanatics are getting tired of the same old pointless application craze that more or less defined the latter part of 2007 for the network. On the other hand, with OpenSocial having not made any substantial steps towards a concrete presence on the internet and Yahoo’s efforts having completely failed in terms of public adoption and awareness, Facebook remains the one, more or less universal social networking platform and by and large the one with the vast majority of third party applications and meaningful population profiles. I have written about my personal use of the network before: to me it’s merely a universal ‘phonebook’ where I can find old schoolmates, long lost friends from university or other activities and friends of friends that I never got the chance to get to know well enough, but that were somewhat interesting to merit a basic level of communication. I don’t use any of its facilities, not even the basic stuff like messaging (what’s the point? email is much better). It is, in my eyes, merely a directory of people, not a platform for communication. Yet others have used it in considerably different ways: from meeting new people, to ‘wasting’ time using pointless applications, to showcasing their photographs or communicating. The University of Bath has a short survey regarding the use of Facebook. The survey is available in several languages and can be found here. It will probably take less than 5 minutes of your time. Τhe results of this survey are going to be published online after the survey and accompanying analysis are completed.