The Best Recruiters Ever

The best recruiters I’ve ever met are the ones that make me forget that I’m talking to a recruiter, usually very quickly.

It’s easy to be a lofty software developer who has jobs pitched to him every day by email, Twitter, LinkedIn, blog comments, and give all of those reach outs the same treatment: “Meh.”

Developers, I’m talking to you: Have you ever tried reaching out to a complete stranger while attempting to pique their interest in something? It’s hard! Just try and write an email to some stranger and make a role as a Senior Software Developer at AdBird17 LLC sound appealing. I bet you’ll come out with something like:

Hey X!

My name is Y, and I’m looking for talented developers to join the team at AdBird 17. They’re a bunch of awesome guys, they just got funding, and they’re looking to grow their engineering department.

Your background looks really interesting. Do you have any time to talk by phone this week?

- Y

TechCrunch article on AdBird 17: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/22/adbird-17-goes-to-awesome-town

Great! You did it. You wrote pretty much the exact same email every other recruiter in the world wrote to that guy. At some point, you realize that even you wouldn’t respond to something so generic.

So you decide to spice it up and give it some personality:

Hey X!

I was reading your blog post on the future of evil robots, really good stuff!

[Begin generic portion of email] I just wanted to reach out and see if you might be interested in a Software Engineering role at AdBird 17. They’re VC-funded and growing quickly. Do you have any time to talk this week?

They were recently featured in TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/01/adbird-17-founders-call-out-adblock-for-foul-play

- Y

In all seriousness, a recruiter called me in the middle of writing that last bit.

The best recruiters go farther. They provoke a conversation. They get you to reply. And from there, the conversation begins, and trust begins to develop. They’ll write something like:

Hey X,

I was just reading your last post on the best recruiters ever. You’re dead on. I guess my question is, why do all you developers think you’re so high and mighty?

-Y

And then Y writes something like:

Hey Y,

I wouldn’t say most of us really think that. A lot of developers are elitists, but a lot of us are nice too :)

See?

I think it’s that we get so many emails, that it becomes a burden to reply to each one. And there are certain buzz-phrases that freak me out, like “touch base”, “reach out”, and “ping” that sound so generic and recruiter-ish that most of the time I figure I was #1,254 on the email list for that day, and it’s no big deal if I don’t reply.

- X

From there, Y can take it anywhere. He/she can mention some postings they’re working on, offer a friendly invite for beer/coffee sometime, or just leave something in the way of, “if you’re ever looking for something …”

The last part works. I have in-fact called on recruiters I had a casual, email or phone-only relationship with to poll them on freelance gigs, etc.

It’s not easy to be a recruiter like that, because it takes time, and you sort of have to be a real, genuine person to be effective. But the ones who achieve that are the best recruiters ever.

</end_of_main_post>

But what about the worst recruiters ever? The worst recruiters are definitely the robots (or humans trained to act like robots). You know them, the ones that come across like:

Job candidate:

You may or may not be qualified for the role below;

10-15 years COBOL;
Mastery of CustomWareDB++ 87 REQUIRED;
Work with Babbage engines desired;

If you are qualified, reply with an attached resume in TXT format only and stand by until you are selected. Else, kindly forward names and email addresses of contacts who meet or may meet qualifications.

- Watson

Recruitment emails like that kind of exist. The most outrageous part of it is that lines like “you may or may not be qualified for the role we are sending below” are not an exaggeration. I’ve got half a mind to call out some big shops that do that. What level of quality is being hired through spam like that?

My only guess is that the need for the specific position is so hard to fulfill, that you have to unleash an army of robots to have a chance at finding a matching human.

Ok, that’s all for now. And lastly, here’s a real evil robot recruiter in action:

Posted in Jobs | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Is ‘Daily Deal’ Brokering An Unsustainable Business Model?

I’ve been pretty involved in hyperlocal news sites as of late, and I’ve had a really good taste of the daily deals market. And you know what? I don’t like it.

Analyzing different business models has become sort of a pastime for me, and the idea of ‘Daily Deals’ has had me thinking the last couple weeks. I honestly think consumers are getting sick of the term ‘Deals’, because of what it represents. It’s starting to sound snake-oily. And as a consumer, I’m tired of them coming to my inbox. I’m tired of them being for all-day wine or skiing trips, or for things that aren’t actually good deals at all. I just want deals for Moe’s sub and pizza shop. I think other consumers want that too.

Of source, that’s just speculation. I stumbled on an infographic that sort of encapsulates everything I was thinking: see it here. And it looks like it was backed by some credible sources.

There’s a serious disconnect between what the major stakeholders in this daily deal operation think they are getting in return, and it’s making the whole model crumble. For example:

The business owner wants new business. He takes a calculated risk by offering a ‘deal’ in order to get that business, hoping they’ll return and eventually pay full price. Business from existing customers kind of sucks, because those are already-loyal customers getting something on the cheap.

If the daily deals market grows in this scenerio, you reach a point where you begin to polarize commerce taking place. Businesses that offer deals are getting most of the customers. But those deals aren’t really making anyone money, and as soon as they revoke the deal in order to capitalize on the ‘repeat business’, deal seekers are off getting something cheap somewhere else.

The consumer wants a perfect world where they have a relevant deal in their inbox most days of the week. Not just zip line adventures and horseback riding — they want lunch and dinner deals — deals at the places they frequent most often. But they aren’t really getting that. And if they did, it’s completely incompatible with the fact that a business needs to make money to survive (polarization, again).

The daily deals market requires small businesses to hurt themselves by provoking unsustainable pricing amongst each other. I think a side effect of this is that you start to see deals which aren’t actually deals at all. SMBs are trying to capitalize on the popularity of the deals while making money at the same time. Ever see a deal that says something like “Dinner for 2 at Bob’s Pasta, only $50. Save 75%!!”?

That’s not a deal at all, but Bob’s pasta is using deals as a platform to gain visibility and possibly rope in some suckers. But consumers recognize a crap deal when they see one. At this point, the model has crumbled.

I also wonder if there’s a psychological issue with getting something discounted one day, and paying full price the next. If I pay $5 for a pizza, I might not be able to pay $15 for that same pizza a week later.

In sales, it’s common to hear that you should “never compete on price”, and that it’s better to give something away for free rather than give it at a discount. Why? Because the customer won’t always expect something for free, but it’ll be hard to take away the discounts. Another problem with the daily deals model?

This is all in retrospect, so it may have been hard to see how exactly things like this would play out when Groupon et. al. were still on the horizon. But at this point, I think SMBs and consumers are slowly becoming disenchanted with the ‘deals’ experience.

It goes back to my post on winning: The consumer is generally winning when he’s getting great deals everywhere. The business is winning when he gets repeat business at full price. But in actuality, he’s not getting repeat business from people who are already off capitalizing on the next deal. Much of the time he offers a deal, he’s losing.

When you think about this model, you might come to a realization: The SMBs were hurt in the long run, and the consumers didn’t gain much. Deals may still be useful, but only for local upstarts that need to get the word out.

Agree or disagree? I appreciate any thoughts, especially from small business owners and deal consumers.

PS: I’ve been thinking that a nice way to work around the issues above is to make an offer like “Free bottle of wine with two entrees.” This way the consumer feels like he’s getting something good, and the SMB has the opportunity to upsell on things like appetizers and desserts, making his money back right away. It also avoids the psychological issue mentioned.

Posted in Ads, Business | Leave a comment

Last Developer Standing at Right Media NYC

Note: This post is primarily intended for former Right Media/Yahoo engineering employees. I’m only saying that now because if you don’t fall into that group, you probably won’t care a whole lot about this post. Also, I wrote it on my last day, which was over six months ago. It’s probably something that needed a few months to sit while the dust was settling.

“Time for this ol’ hoss to move on”

I said that to myself in the style of Morgan Freeman, joking of course. It seems like I’ve been working at Yahoo for 30 years — and I don’t mean that in a bad way. I’ve just seen so many people come and go, so much change in such a short amount of time, I feel as if I’ve seen the full lifecycle of a company.

I worked on the Right Media UI codebase. I’m the last developer on what was once a formidable Right Media NY engineering team. If you’re not familiar, Right Media was a very successful ad startup that made an $850MM exit back in 2007 — but the bulk of the original employee base has since eroded away and deposited at various ad startups around New York City.

I arrived late in the game — 2010, when the full glory of what Right Media was had been absorbed into the deep, purple abyss of Yahoo. But that’s why I came to work here: I was fascinated with Yahoo and their adtech, intrigued by what must have been a cove of internet innovation nestled in an otherwise consulting or financially focused NYC. I’d never been inside a place like that. It was California in New York.

I’d bet that’s what Right Media folks were thinking back when the Yahoo acquisition was announced (aside from how quickly they could make it to the pay window). Yahoo at that time was still relatively free from now-common media criticism — It’s fingers soon to be dancing over the trigger of the Microsoft snub. Google? Facebook? Small beans. Impossible is nothing.

Man, what would it have been like? Fun? I bet. I sort of know the Right Media team — sort of. I know them through the various tickets, svn blames, and comments I’ve seen over my time here. It’s weird, I feel like I know the different people whose names I’ve seen but (mostly) haven’t met: ekozek, rsnyder, tjohnson, eyilmaz, agkov, jrohland, bok, cfarlane, dsomers — the list goes on. I’ve read wiki pages that describe tech talks and beer and all the stuff you’d expect of a startup. But it’s long gone.

I never knew that time — only imagined it. Today, what’s left of RightMedia’s NY engineering team could be reasonably compared to, well, the first 30 seconds of this. Ok, maybe that’s a bit dramatic.

I’m obviously at the wrong place if I want some sort of fast moving, continuous release, ready-to-take-over-the-world culture, but I love adtech. Big corps and global teams have their inherent overhead. That’s also why I happen to be moving on. So I’m the last developer ever to work on Right Media in New York.

That last point is something I should mention. So far you may have gotten the impression that RMX engineering is non-existent. It’s alive and well — just not in NYC. It’s in California, Chicago, Beijing, Bangalore, and a few other places. Just not New York, where it was born.

Anyway, this post serves as somewhat of a “Brooks was here, So was Red” note — Something to tell all those former RMX-ers what ever happened to that ol’ Right Media team. I’m the last one standing, and I’m headed out. I’ve got my own plans in the ad game.

Some things I’ve collected over the years (definitely true RM memorobilia):

Posted in Ads, Life | 1 Comment

GENI: A Gigabit Playground for Developers

A couple weeks ago I did a short screencast demonstrating GENI, a platform for experimenting with programmable gigabit networks. With all the press surrounding Google Fiber in Kansas City, it’s amazing how relevant these screencasts are to current events.

As a developer who participates in Mozilla Ignite’s App Challenge, you’ll be given access to a gigabit-speed platform to build apps on. Sure, it’s nice to think that pretty soon your laughing baby will load without any buffer time, but as a web maker, how can you build apps that leverage such high speed? It’s a new frontier.

The content of the screencast was fairly basic last week, and I showed how you can very easily provision two servers on GENI and get them to talk to each other. That was really cool, but as I promised, it’s going to get real. Today I wanted to show how to set up two boxes, one in Utah, one in DC, and get them to talk at 1 Gb/s.

Without further ado:

So the next screencast will be on a topic that I actually get a bit short of breath just thinking about: programmable networks. Ie, how can you design a new protocol to rival TCP/IP and test it in the great wide open? We’ll see. And I think you’ll need this.

Posted in Future, GENI, Tools | Leave a comment

GENI: Build the New Internet (A Video)

Last week I mentioned that I was writing the documentation for a project named GENI, which a large NSF-sponsored with quite a few people and organizations involved — but the basic goal is to create platform for experimenting with “networks of the future.”

It’s hard to imagine what exactly that means to you as a developer, so today I made a quick video post to give you a very basic idea of the kinds of tools and resources available to you. GENI provides a suite of tools to allocate physical and virtual machines, set up networks around them, and program how those networks behave. What can you do with that? I dunno, design what the future internet looks like. Or maybe build some killer app to utilize all that.

Watch me run through the basics in less than 5 minutes.

As this GENI series continues, I’m going to dig deeper and show some more complex examples of what you can do. In particular:

  • Long distance communication over a gigabit link
  • An example of a new protocol running on that network using OpenFlow

So follow along, it’s going to get real :)

Posted in Future, GENI | Tagged , | Leave a comment

GENI: Experiment with the Internet of the Future

I was born into the age of the internet, and I took it for granted. I looked at the potential of the internet in terms of, “What can I build on top of it?” The dirty details of what held this big network together was someone else’s problem.

As web developers, we tend to build new apps based off the starting point of HTTP. We rarely care about the transport and routing protocols that sit below us. Why should we? We’ve got money to make and worlds to change!

What if we could have a say in the way the internet’s routers forwarded packets? What if the networks that we built our apps to leverage were 250 times faster than what was available now? What could we build that just isn’t feasible today?

There’s a big project going on that’s sponsored by the National Science Foundation called GENI. The purpose of the project is to provide a whole range of tools and testbeds for simulating the future internet “at scale” — that is, a way for experimenters so set up isolated models of new internet architectures and applications running on them.

The reason I’m writing about this is because I’m working with Mozilla to document the GENI project and make it easier for developers to start using and exploring GENI. This has largely been an academic project — but it’s almost ready for developers to start hacking away. (Aside: Check out the Mozilla Ignite App Challenge if you’re full of ideas and interested in prizes)

Oh, and the reason it interested me in the first place?

The realization that the internet is still very much in it’s infancy, and there’s a wild new frontier for developers to explore. 

This is the first post in a series on GENI. I’ll have a lot more on the philosophy behind the project, some very cool example projects I’ve come across, and tips on how you can get started.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Winning Is Better When Everyone Else Is Winning Too (Yelp vs Heroku)

I was 11 or 12 when I got my first taste of Monopoly at summer camp. I loved that game — and I think it was my first taste of business. A game that, like life in a lot of ways, was based partly on luck, partly on wit, and much of it on social finess. Sometimes you got lucky and landed on the right properties — sometimes you had to talk your pals into a seemingly innocent 2, 3, or 4-way trade that would ultimately devastate them all.

I ended up with a bad rap when it came to Monopoly — no one who had played with me once or twice would play with me again. I mean, it gets old when you’re $5,000 in the red, and instead of it being “game over”, I let you continue playing while tallying your debts.

In a business, there are usually winners and losers. How about those crappy self-checkout systems? The store wins, the vendor wins, employees lose, and customers lose (they aren’t fast, efficient, easy to use, and have too many anti-theft measures that kill the flow). You can find winners and losers in businesses everywhere, and it helps define what kind of businesses I want to start or be involved with.

Now let’s think about an internet company: Yelp. I love Yelp. Yelp decides where I eat and who I patronize in general. In the Yelp model, the readers of the Yelp content are winning. The businesses with consistent 4 and 5 stars are winning too — success breeds more success.

But Yelp does some shady things with its review system. Many claim it filters reviews based on whether small biz owners advertise (and actually, I’ve seen this first-hand). Sounds like extortion? Many think so. If you’ve ever met a frustrated small business owner who has been trashed on Yelp once or twice and honestly doesn’t deserve it (I have), you’ll know why [1][2].

That point is that someone (a lot of someones) lose. Small, local business are an integral part of Yelp’s business model, and many of them are losing, and will probably not advertise their 2 or 3 star business unless they are practically forced into doing so.

I love Yelp as a consumer, because I’m on the winning end. But as a developer, I wouldn’t have started the business. As an investor, I wouldn’t invest. In my opinion, there are better options out there. What options?

A business model where everyone wins. They exist.

I’ve grown to love and favor business models where all participants win — models where the stakeholders take on minimal risk, and all key players have something to gain. Heroku’s a great example of this. I recently bashed the crap out of their lack of execution, but the model rocks. Developers start free, serious apps on Heroku pay pretty low cost for the supposed abstraction of smart infrastructure management, Amazon gets its due, and the ultimate end users of the apps get to use a huge garden of new and exciting hacks faster than before. Who loses? Only competitors that I can think of.

When you mull over an idea as a potential new startup or project, try and evaluate who’s winning. When everyone’s winning, sales efforts are easier, recruitment is easier, and your chances of success are much higher. That’s all based on my own experience.

So yea, go find a way to help everyone win.

Notes:

[1] Come to think about it, you could argue that Yelp’s business model hinges on whether new businesses are worthy of positive reviews off the bat. Is it possible to be a stellar business from the day the doors open? If not, does that slowly whittle the (otherwise large) set of winners down? In this winners-keep-winning scenario on Yelp, I can see the long term sustainability of Yelp’s advertising revenue being in jeopardy. But extortion helps too.

[2] Special thanks to Will Barkis of Mozilla for casually theorizing that nature of high Yelp ratings and putting me into a state of thought.

Posted in Life, Startups | Leave a comment

Jefferson vs Hamilton + 200 years: AWS vs Heroku

This post might be written out of frustration, but I wanted to put this out before the heat of the moment fades away. Amazon had a power outage in its Virgina data center last night due to a storm, and services like Netflix, Instagram, Pinterest, and Heroku have taken a hit.

You could throw a jab at Amazon for supposedly being unable to turn to their backup power supply. But the real crime is that Heroku is down.

Heroku is a PaaS (platform as a service) provider that provides black box webapp infrastructure and is built on the back of Amazon. Heroku is basically the second layer from the bottom up in:

On top of Heroku, developers like me and @seejohnrun build SaaS services that rely on Heroku. And further, we might built apps that depend on our SaaS services. That’s an awful lot of dependency going on.

It reminds me of the debate between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton on the topic of whether America would be better off as a nation based on agriculture or industry. 200+ years later, are we better managing our own server architecture (farming) or outsourcing it to someone else (industry)?

There are benefits to both, but the Heroku outage highlights that fact that for such a high level of interdependency to work, each layer on the stack above needs to be able to operate in some capacity if the layer below it is unavailable or crippled. In theory, Heroku customers shouldn’t even care about an AWS outage.

But that’s not the case, Heroku is down, and the affected apps on Heroku are left with the realities of not being able to help their own situation. If you were managing your own servers on AWS (farming), you could be back up in an hour. With heroku, you have a big purple curtain concealing the details. That same curtain had me mostly convinced that availability issues on a PaaS provider like Heroku were taken care of for me.

Anyway, just something to chew on. Think we have learned our lesson and will move off Heroku when this outage is over. I’m not saying that out of spite — just the realization that’s I’ve put a lot of faith in a black box.

Posted in Ops, Startups, Tools | Leave a comment

Facebook Ads Are Effective, Just Not Relevant, Yet

… and that’s partly the fault of the advertiser, and partly the fault of Facebook.

A friend of mine was crapping all over Nasdaq:FB — not because he’s rolls with popular opinion, but because he decided for himself that Facebook is wildly overvalued. My friend is a disciple of Warren Buffet — and anyone who pays homage to the church of Buffet is going to stay far away from Facebook.

He’s right, Facebook is definitely overvalued. But what I disagree with him over, and many of the analysts, is the potential for their advertising business. And for them, GM’s shrugging of Facebook, among other commentary, is enough to discredit advertising on Facebook altogether. They say the advertising just isn’t effective — that it’s like “hanging signs on the wall of a house during a party.“ I say it’s not. Social ads are relatively new, and I think that most advertisers have yet to leverage them effectively.

I got a little press last week for my rampant Facebook fanboyism. But blind loyalty is not my thing.

Anyway, that friend asked me an intriguing question: “Describe a TV commercial you saw recently.”

You should try it. Go ahead, recollect one. Got one in your mind?

Then he said, “Describe a Facebook ad you’ve seen recently.”

I totally get what was supposed to happen here. I was supposed to remember a TV ad, which is pretty likely. And then I was supposed to draw a blank when I tried to recall a Facebook ad. Too bad I barely watch TV! (and I wonder if that’s a growing segment of my generation, hrm) It didn’t work. In fact, I recalled a Facebook ad for some Master’s program at Cornell.

His point was that people on Facebook aren’t really paying attention to, or engaged with the ads. And that same point is all over the internet with General Motors as the poster boy. In contrast, search ads are the holy grail for a lot of companies. For instance, users who search for cars on Google are explicitly expressing their interest in purchasing a car.

Remember, people didn’t always think search ads would work. At least Jerry Yang didn’t. Oh snap!

Facebook is not Google, and Facebook has plenty of personal information it can leverage to play a completely different game. Facebook can expose one the most important factors in my, and my friends’ buying decisions: The opinions of those in my inner circle. And FB is already doing that to some extent, but the advertisers are guilty of not targeting me correctly. Maybe Facebook is guilty of not providing the granular tools needed to target ads toward me.

So here’s what’s currently in my ad-bar on Facebook.

My complaint is that most of these ads aren’t relevant. Now, you might say “Kenny, chill out. Not all ads are going to be relevant online.” Oh yeah? Facebook has the most information about me, second only to my wife (I think), but there can’t be things I consider interesting in that sidebar? If something cool pops up, I’ll click. Facebook ads are effective when they’re relevant, and they are in position to make them socially and demographically relevant better then anyone else.

Ah, but some say they won’t. Apparently 44% of Facebook users said they would never click a Facebook ad. No kidding. Most people have the same convictions regarding online ads in general. I call those numbers meaningless for two reasons:

  1. People rarely click on ads, period. I’ve run OpenX instances for some high-traffic sites, and the click-through rates are pretty low. Guess what? The average CTR is something like .3% for the most effective ad formats.
  2. A weaker argument, but what the hell: Does anyone else know someone who complains about how much they hate Facebook (and everyone on it) but that same person just happens to be extremely active on Facebook? What people say and what they do are often two different things.

Facebook could be the home of the most compelling ads, product searches, and reviews in the world. They can tap into the most powerful influence in getting me to buy a product: my friends’ opinions.

So GM: I never saw any of your ads, but what were you trying to push on Facebook? Cars? Are you aware that over half of Facebook is 18-34 year olds — the jobless Occupy Wall St types that probably associate you with corporate failure and government bailouts? I hope you weren’t targeting them, sheesh.

Snarkiness aside, maybe Facebook simply proved ineffective for them. Who’s looking to buy cars on Facebook anyway? Google and Cars.com can probably make big bets that you’re looking for cars. It would make sense for GM to pull their budget if it just wasn’t working. Facebook, although, is certainly more effective than existing solutions for other products. What products? Exactly.

I declare Facebook ads the kings of impulse buys. Facebook doesn’t know exactly what you want like Google does, but the definitely know what you might like better than anyone. Amazon might be a close competitor, but a wrench gets thrown in when multiple people (like me and my wife) are using the same account, and I bet that happens a lot.

Being honest, all the Facebook ads for products I’ve clicked on were for things that would be impulse purchases. With the social backdrop, this is so, so powerful.

If I saw an ad and it said “John Crepezzi likes apple-flavored oranges”, I might actually buy the damned things. These exist in primitive form right now (the ads, not the oranges), but that needs to expanded greatly.

Two far-out ideas for Facebook:

  • Social-circle reviews: When a users ‘likes’ a product on FB, why not try and get a little more textual info? Why can’t Facebook be the center of the review universe rather than Yelp, which hasn’t innovated at nearly the rate of Facebook? FB already owns the local business market with their Facebook ‘pages’. I don’t think it would hurt existing relationships with small businesses — each FB user’s social circle would yield a different set of ratings and reviews. A bad small biz won’t be able to tell that everyone hates them.
    Side question: Maybe reviews in the context of your social circle are more valuable? For example, a pizza joint in Portland might have 5/5 stars, but I’m from around NYC and bound to be a classic pizza snob. I want to hear what my friends think.
  • Sentiment targeting. You can bank on the fact that a given Facebook user has publicly touted or complained about some company or product via their feed. This isn’t a perfect science by any means, but wouldn’t it be interesting?

This is stuff Google can’t do unless Google Plus starts getting used. I don’t think Twitter can do it because the social context isn’t as powerful.

Hey Facebook — you work for me now. I’ll stop there. Share your thoughts. Replies me-to-you are 1:1.

Posted in Ads, Business, Offtopic, Startups | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Facebook Changed Everything, It’s Not A Fad, and I’m With Zuck

I just read a comment from what was likely a troll on some website I’ve never heard of. It read:

Facebook is a fad and only losers are on there. You people go on Facebook and try to get as many friends as you can but the reality of it is that none of you people really like each other or you would use the telephone to stay in touch. All of you Facebook people don’t really care about what your “friends” are doing and they don’t care about you either. Most of you people maybe have only one or two real friends…..right? But Facebook is a mirage because it makes you think you have lots of friends when you really don’t. Think about what you people are doing and how you are fooling yourselfs.

I’d like to dismiss this guy and move on, but his opinion (which I completely disagree with), is fairly prevalent. In fact, some recent poll says that half of Americans think facebook is a passing fad.

Let me just say — as a software developer, user of Facebook since ’05, and developer of 3 of the first 100 Facebook apps — I have seen the greatness that is Facebook. They jacked the world up and dollied themselves underneath. The world is dependent on Facebook, and they will become a revenue-cranking growth superstar.

  1. It passes boredom
  2. It maintains friendships
  3. It resurrects old friendships
  4. It sparks new friendships
  5. It’s extendable
  6. It’s integratable
  7. It’s a social news feed
  8. It’s a world news feed
  9. It’s a chat platform
  10. It’s a media sharing platform
  11. It’s a company of talented hackers
  12. It’s a place where small business promote themselves
  13. It’s the only place that some businesses promote themselves (not even a website)
  14. It’s Google’s big problem to solve
  15. It has created a massive queryable, crowd-sourced, graph of people, places, and things of the world
  16. They’ve captured 1/7th of the world
  17. They asked for all of your info, and you gave it to them

In short: They’ve consistently innovated throughout their existence. They blew the doors off of what everyone thought social networking was at the time (MySpace). For more than 7 years, they’ve improved rapidly, collected data, and grown their roots so deep into our way of life that I’m not sure those roots can ever be removed without something radical happening (massive privacy breach?)

If you think they’re going to fall on their faces now, you’re out of your mind. I’m long on Facebook, that’s all I gotta say.

Posted in Life, Soap Box | 15 Comments