Facebook - less awesome, more meh and a question

So, now we know what the Facebook announcement was all about - probably the very worst kept secret of the year so far. I watched it live and as the title of the post implies, I wasn't impressed. Apple know how to do launches - theatres, flashy lights, a sense of expectation, the works. Microsoft can do launches - who can forget the Steve Ballmer introduction? And what do we get? A couple of screens, crappy tables facing the wrong way, journos typing away and Zuckerberg talking to no-one in particular. *I* have done better launches than that! It was clearly put together at a rush with very little thought.

This isn't me just being sarcastic - I think what this demonstrates is that Facebook has been caught on the hop by Google. Zuckerberg spent most of the (short) presentation he gave talking about metrics, demographics - in fact just about anything other than the products he was launching. The other engineers who gave demonstrations used the word 'awesome' rather too often for my liking. Saying a word does not make it so. As was the case here. Nothing that they showed was new - at all. Everything that was demonstrated is already available elsewhere. That's not 'awesome', that's catchup. If I want to invite friends into a conversation, I can easily do it via MSN IM, or Chatzy and if I want video chat I can use Tinychat. To say nothing of course of using G+.  Sure, it's great that it's now IN Facebook, but that's what I would expect to happen. And to have happened a long time ago.

However, there's one question that no-one really seems to be asking. How many people actually want it? I've tried chat a few times from within Twitter, and had very little response. I'm sure (before you say it!) that it's not because people don't want to talk to me, it's just that they're not too sure about using chat, and being in chat rooms. I grew up with chatrooms - from way back in the 80's - and I like them. They can be quite intimidating though. They require good typing skills - good chatters tend to be fast chatters, and the ability to hold several conversations at once. There's often a bunch of slightly odd functions that you can use in order to create certain effects - /me laughs for example would read as 'Phil laughs' which is more readable, but you have to remember how to do it.

When it comes to video - should I be slightly more presentable than usual? I need to remember what is behind me in the room, since it's usually something of a tip. I have to ensure that the lighting is ok. I need to have a reasonable webcam, or have the screen at a specific angle if I'm using the laptop webcam. What's the protocol for talking? Formal, or informal? I think the technology is less important than what we do with it, and how we do it. We need to all sit down and learn this stuff.

Over the course of the summer, when it's nice and quiet, perhaps it would be a good idea to do some playing around with the functionality. Almost like a training course, but not. Let's call it 'experience gaining'. I'll try and arrange some times for chatting - perhaps in August when everyone who wants G+ can have it, and we can play and explore on a variety of different resources. I'll be getting back to you on it...

Comments

[Matt Hopkins]

I felt the exact same Phil. The first half of the presentation was like someone telling Mark Z to "drag it out" - as if the demo was not ready.. you know "fill time".. there was no substance to it.

And then when it was all over, I waited.. I was sure that there would be more. I was expecting one of those Steve Jobs "and one more thing" moments. But it never came.

This was an opportunity lost for Facebook. Meh! indeed.

[Gabriel - diseño de paginas web]

Interesting article .. By the way since I see you're a great expert on the subject, I would like to know if you think Google + becomes as powerful as google?

I would like to know the opinion of an expert in the field.

Gabriel