Facebook and Location: Here is What We Know

Posted by Lawrence Coburn on May 7th, 2010

AdAge is reporting that we will very soon see some sort of McDonald’s app onFacebook mobile that allows people to check in – or at least associate their status updates – to McDonalds locations (see our analysis here).

For this to happen, Facebook will need to be able to map status updates to user location. Which means the functionality will be there for other brands / developers – and Facebook itself – to use in other ways.

Yes, Facebook location is coming, and it’s coming soon.

Does this signal the introduction of a venue focused, Foursquare-like check-in service? Or, as MG Siegler believes, will users simply be given the opt-in (or opt-out) option to associate their coordinates with a status update, like how Twitter is currently doing it.

At this point, we don’t know.

It depends on what exactly the word “location” means to Facebook. If it’s mapping to a venue, Facebook will be moving in direct competition with companies like Foursquare, Gowalla, PlacePop, BrightKite, Rummble,Buzzd, etc. But if it means a pin on a map, it might signal a willingness by Facebook to be the infrastructure layer that powers countless other third party developed native Facebook geolocation apps. Kind of like SimpleGeofor Facebook apps.

And then there’s the question of whether Facebook sees location as core to its platform.

If Facebook deems location as core to the platform, location would be in the same category of functionality as photos, messaging, and events. Ominously, how many third party apps do you use on Facebook for photos, messaging, and events? If you’re like me, none.

Facebook has decided to own these categories.

(Cue shivers of fear from the current geo startups.)

But the platform side of Facebook’s business might see more upside in letting a thousand geolocation flowers bloom, much like they have done with games. If they go this route, they will surely benefit from new breed of Facebook geo apps (such as the McDonalds one), buying advertising.

I don’t know which way it’s going to go. Facebook’s platform tendencies seem to be very strong, but location is such a fundamental element that it’s not inconceivable that Facebook might want to just seize it as their own.

Under duress, I’m going to say that Facebook is going to go the infrastructure route and give developers the tools to weave location into their Facebook applications. I think the McDonald’s app will be the pilot for this approach.

At least I hope so.

For more, follow TNW Location on twitter, Buzz, and Facebook. Follow TNW Network on twitter, Buzz, and Facebook for all our top stories.

http://thenextweb.com/location/2010/05/07/facebook-and-location-here-is-what-we-know/

Dear Facebook…

Posted by Brad McCarty Follow Brad McCarty on twitter on May 8th, 2010

Mr. Zuckerberg, et al -

I am writing to you today as a concerned user of Facebook. I’m sure you’ve read similar things in the very recent past, but I’d like to add my 2 cents.

With the new ideas that you’ve implemented on Facebook, you have some great possibilities. I think that many of us would welcome the ability to centralize a lot of our Internet activity, and to share that in a social manner.

The issues, however, lie in how you’ve chosen to integrate these ideas.

Obviously you saw the backlash when Google announced Buzz, and gave us the ability to opt out of the service if we didn’t like it. The problem, as you know, is that we shouldn’t have to opt out of changes, we should have the ability to opt into them.

Clearly, Facebook is not Google but you should stop to consider the fact that we are not just a flock of numbered sheep. We are your users, and we’re frankly pretty tired of being pawns. Obviously, your business has to make money. In fact, we want you to do just that. But not at the cost of our privacy and by providing us with a lack of options.

There should be more exclusivity across your platform. Opting out of one thing should not prevent me from using something else unrelated. That’s called punishment, not architecture. Perhaps some of the users of your service are children, but we’re also called your customers. Treat us as customers first and you’ll likely have fewer problems moving forward.

I find it almost humorous that your company has dismissed our complaints. The problem, though, is that it’s not funny. It’s dangerous to you and your company. True, the average user might not care much about privacy, because they’ve never been adversely affected by it. But give it time and they will be. Then what do you do with that backlash?

Of course, I can already hear the response – “they can leave if they don’t like it”. Many have and many more will. But even upon making that decision, your company continues a flow of deceit. You show us pictures of people in our friends and tell us that they will not be able to communicate with us anymore. Really, Mr. Zuckerberg? Last time I checked, my fiancée knew where I lived.

In short, you are your own worst enemy when it comes to figuring out what people will like. Just because a group within the Facebook compound thinks that something is cool, that is not representative of the rest of the population. You’re uniquely unqualified to make that decision. You see everything you do as amazing. We see it as another annoying step required to operate how we wish.

So keep listening to the “Like” buttons of the 12 year olds, when your fastestgrowth numbers are in their 50’s and 60’s. Keep blindly stumbling into more “features” that will tell the world the last time I blew my nose. Keep forcing me to spend an hour updating my settings each time that you decide it’s time to change the base of how your site works. You keep doing these things, and I’ll keep preaching the gospel against your ignorance for what your customers truly want.

Oh, and while you’re at it, keep screwing over Zynga. If you want to make a lot of us happy by not having to hide Farmville status updates, keep forcing Zenga’s hand until they leave Facebook.

http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/05/08/hey-facebook-watch-out-for-the-dorsal-fin/

Could Facebook go Farmville, Mafia War free without a user revolt?

By Larry Dignan | May 8, 2010, 3:58am PDT

Summary

The relationship that is Facebook and Zynga, the social gaming company behind Mafia Wars and Farmville, has reportedly taken a turn for the worse. The fallout should be fun to watch.

Topics

Facebook, Zynga,Games, Strategy,Personal Technology,Management, Larry Dignan

Blogger Info

Larry Dignan

• Bio
• Email

Sam Diaz

• Bio
• Email

Vendor HotSpot

Save 10% on Enterprise-Class Virtualization and Linux Support

Get better support at a lower cost with Oracle VM and Oracle Unbreakable Linux, from just $119 per system/year.

Learn More »

The relationship that is Facebook and Zynga, the social gaming company behind Mafia Wars and Farmville, has reportedly taken a turn for the worse. It’s so bad that Zynga could theoretically leave Facebook. The fallout would be very interesting to watch.

TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington reports that Zynga is fighting—umm negotiating—with Facebook over Facebook Credits, which takes a 30 percent cut of payments. Facebook also wants Zynga to cut a deal where it is primarily on its platform. Zynga would be stupid to tie its fatesolely to Facebook and is now pondering its own social game network called Zynga Live.

Personally, I’d love to see this Facebook-Zynga relationship go nuclear. I’d also love to see Zynga pull out of Facebook completely. Why? There are two things that I find enjoyable: People watching—social networks are great Petri dishes—and pondering business models.

On the first front, it’s clear that the primary objective for many folks on Facebook is to play games. As an academic exercise I wonder if people would be as active on Facebook without Farmville. I doubt it. Unfortunately, I don’t play Farmville so don’t really know how my own usage would change. But it’s a safe bet that a Farmville-free Facebook would result in some user backlash. Maybe folks would even deactivate their accounts.

As for the business model, I’d like Zynga to pull out to see if another company fills the void. A Zynga departure would also give us an indicator on the health of Facebook’s app economy. It would also be interesting to see how Zynga does without Facebook.

The final point: It must annoy Facebook to no end that Zynga arguably has a better business model. Facebook changes its privacy policy every month in an effort to build social graphs, connect the Web and grab data that may or may not be monetized. Zynga’s model is much cleaner—and proven. Zynga simply sells you virtual stuff to play games. It’s the World of Warcraft model. The commerce is clear and you avoid all of the messy privacy stuff that could ultimately turn Facebook into AOL.

When you boil this complicated Facebook-Zynga dance down it’s all about the money. In a perfect world, these two would just merge. Instead, Facebook is likely to try and compete with Zynga. Should be fun to watch.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_0_0_t&ct3=MAA4AEgAUABqAnVz&usg=AFQjCNHlb_R55-BKTU1aQvCe4kHBYkEdjw&sig2=fV_arSfrrCgXYdXLI9qDww&cid=17593748287311&ei=07flS5ibHoeCNJPEtrMC&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zdnet.com%2Fblog%2Fbtl%2Fcould-facebook-go-farmville-mafia-war-free-without-a-user-revolt%2F34203