An Uninvited Friend

Facebook, the company, just became your friend, even though you didn't choose them. And they just crashed your party, Big Brother style.

When Facebook added the Like/Unlike option alongside comments, many users asked for a "Dislike" option if they felt their friends were going over the top in terms of expressing a particular viewpoint.

Not a bad idea.

Facebook, though, has ignored those requests and chosen, instead, to add a "Report" option, in the same vein as "flag@whitehouse.gov" for those "fishy" posts so that we can now report our friends anonymously. But who do we report them to? To our friend in the sky, Facebook.

The choices when reporting a friend's wrongdoings are "inappropriate content", "inappropriate or pornographic picture" or "attacks individual or group".

Think about it: if I choose my friends, what right does Facebook have to arbitrate amongst us friends? Are they the all-knowing Friend, choosing what is appropriate between myself and those I've chosen to keep in my circle of friends? It's not as if this content is available to everyone on the web; it's only available to friends I've chosen.

Maybe Facebook meant well, and I can certainly see their point on pornography. But we already have the option to limit what we see from feeds of friends who go over the top, and it works as intended, without the threat of banishment from Facebook.

On matters of politics, lifestyle, et al, for Facebook to suddenly become the arbiter amongst a group of friends makes Facebook the equivalent of the schoolyard monitor at recess; yes, they control the joint, but you really don't want them mucking up your free time before they drag you back into the classroom.

Facebook won't be able to effectively police the bullying, and the unintended side effect of the "Report" feature will be a chilling impact on those of us who might choose to have friends of different political or lifestyle persuasions, for fear one of those friends will "report" us and we'll lose our Facebook accounts.

Way to go, Facebook: you've now inadvertently segmented a growing community of eclectic friendships back into small camps of like-minded (whether narrow or broad) people.

Google Purchases On2 - Additional Thoughts

Dan Rayburn, whose Business of Video blog is integrated into the StreamingMedia.com home page, alongside articles that I and others write, posted this morning about the Google-On2 acquisition. In his blog post, labelled Google's Acquisition of On2 Not a Big Deal, Here's Why, Dan listed off a series of reasons why Google may not have been interested in purchasing On2.

A fascinating read, and a bit of a different take from the streamingmedia.com news article I'd written early this morning, which outlined the deal.

In between writing mine and reading Dan's I had spent some time thinking through what Google might be up to, so I posted the following as a comment on Dan's blog:

I think Google's got a nice three-base hit going on here, with the outside chance of a home run. As you mention, open sourcing VP8 could deal with the objections that have been raised more loudly since the Open Video Conference in June and the subsequent impact on the HTML 5 video tag discussions.

As mentioned in the streamingmedia.com articles I did around both of those topics, Google's made it plain, at least with Chrome, that it's wiling to play both in the open-source and standards-based video worlds.

The original open-sourcing of the VP codec that Theora is based on, VP3.2, has raised valid objections about the open-source community's use of a "tired" code base to attempt an assault on H.264.

The thing is, Google doesn't have to open-source VP8 to be a part of the open-source movement toward a "free" codec; they can open-source VP7 instead, which provides a chance for the open-source community to mount a decent effort to catch up with H.264 (and for Wikimedia and Mozilla and Chrome to get what they wanted during the HTML5 debate)

Based on the comparisons I did a few years ago (in Dec 2007, available at www.on2.com/file.php?195) between VP6, VP7 and H.264, if they released VP7 as open-source it would bring open-source and standards-based codecs close to parity.

The second-base play is that Google gets H.264 as part of its On2 purchase. That's what the Hantro part of the On2 purchase gives Google a double benefit.

The third-base play is that Google gets to make the open-source community happy, play in the standards-based world with H.264 and keep VP8 all to itself as a proprietary codec for live, low-latency, bi-directional streams (beyond Googletalk, think Skype, AIM Triton, the Chinese telecom that On2 has as a client for video IM, etc.)

Will it be a home run? I think the economies of scale Google gets from buying out of an unknown licensing fee might look like a way to get that final base, but the real final sprint from third to home plate will be all about Google's ability to execute on a vision like the one I'm conjecturing. Regardless, the gestalt of these moves means Google gets a chance to keep something for itself, while building a barrier to entry on the innovation side.

Someone followed up with a response, asking about the patent litigation that could follow, and whether the Hantro portion of On2 (H.264 embedded) would be as big an issue, so I posted the following clarifying comments.

One of the reasons, as least in my mind, that On2 bought Hantro was to hedge its bets and further embed itself into the embedded device space. What On2 got from Hantro, then, was a set of expertise that it could couple with a group of the original RPI researchers that form the core of On2's development team.

The latter group has been continually innovating for well over a decade, and while it's not a surefire method for success, since so much money has to be rolled back into research and development, it certainly has allowed a small company like On2 to keep pace with the industry as a whole.

Will this keep the IP lawsuits at bay? I suspect not, but since Google specifically calls out the R&D and innovation as a factor in the purchase, one wonders - if Google can keep them happy - what greenfield innovations the small team will be able to perform with somewhat limitless resources and a mobile / embedded platform that's a potential alternative to RIM and Apple's offerings.

It's still early in the process, and On2 has its earnings call tomorrow, but it seems like a decent plan if Google's on track to do even a fraction of this . . .