Much has been said about Google’s OpenSocial APIs, but for me the fact that it isn’t really a website or physical space is what makes it interesting.

Uno De Waal is someone who’s posted quite a bit about social networking platforms (or social networks) being a fad, whilst the activity of social networking is here to stay.

I tend to agree with this point of view. And in doing so believe that OpenSocial is the way to go. As platform sites (Facebook, Ning.com, MySpace, linkedin ,etc) gain in popularity, other ones (same list, etc) are likely to fall by the wayside. Growing tired or bored of something is human nature.

Moving forward, social network platforms that haven’t even been born yet would be silly not to incorporate OpenSocial in their plans. It gives them a bit of instant traction when it comes to giving new users access to the “social graph” they already built on another platform.

Google has done well to play their move into social networking by providing a backbone rather than another place for you to sign-up and re-meet all your friends. In a way, OpenSocial is future proof, well, especially when compared to Facebook.

Facebook probably won’t really be that hurt by OpenSocial, I think FB will carry on regardless. But the cost of moving to another network that is using OpenSocial is now a lot lower.

I think at the end of the day, it’s not really about Google versus Facebook. The Google/Facebook thing is merely a skirmish, the real war is amongst those looking for sustainable, long-term access to your own social graph so that they know exactly who you are and what advert to put in front of you.

links:
- OpenSocial on Wikipedia.
- Techcrunch
- Why Facebook shouldn’t efar OpenSocial