Brian Kelly wonders why some software products are considered to be fads and why some are not. He says:
The Apache server software saw steady growth in its use from its launch. But I never heard anyone criticise Web server administrators for being fashionable, or doom merchants predicting that the growth would come to an end and, therefore, there is little point in using the software.
And yet such arguments are being made when other software, such as Facebook, becomes popular. Why is this, I wonder?
Here’s my take:
Facebook has limitations that cannot be worked around. It forces me (as a user) to work the way they want me to, their method of working is inneficient (at least for what I am trying to achieve). As a result I don’t see the value and I, possibly rashly, label it as a fad.
In contrast the Apache web server can be customised to work the way I want it to. I’m not forced to follow someone elses way of working, although I can choose to do so if I agree with the fashion. In other words I can choose to set the trend or follow it. Having options means there is a greater chance to retain your market.
Brian then goes on to hypothesise that:
I think this is because services such as Facebook don’t fit in with the ideology of the ‘chattering classes’ – it’s not, open source, for example. And, unlike Apache, there is a lot of money associated with Facebook, with large companies (such as Microsoft and Google) looking to invest in the company.
This is a common mistake. Open source is not (at least should not be) an ideology of the “chattering classes”. It is a development methodolgoy that gets real work done, for real people, in real profitable organisations.
It’s interesting that Brian claims that there is no money being invested in the Apache web server. Who does he think pays for the people who develop it? The server is embedded in a huge range of high profile commercial products from a very large range of companies, much larger than those reported to be interested in Facebook. If the Apache web server were not owned by a non-profit I suspect its valuation would be far higher than Facebooks.
Sure, there is money <b>associated</b> with Facebook, but nothing truly significant in terms of profit. On the other hand, there are huge profitable organisations that are fully dependant on the Apache web server and sink considerable amounts of money into its development.
I therefore cannot agree that the reson some users like Facebook and others do not has anything to do with money, at least not if we ignore the chattering classes and listen to those with opinions we value. Instead I think it is more to do with the ability to make the product do what you want. Of course, for every person claiming it is a fashion there is another claiming it will be here for ever. We should listen to those voices too.
Brian says “as professionals we should base our judgments on evidence, rather than beliefs and, if the evidence shows that our beliefs aren’t working, then we may need to modify our beliefs, rather than ignore the evidence.” I fully agree.
Can anyone show me the evidence that Facebook is not a fad? I doubt it.
Can I show you the evidence that Facebook is a fad? No, I can’t
Brian then goes on to cite the netcraft survey as evidence about the changing fashions in the server market:
On the other hand, maybe Apache is starting to become unfashionable; after all as a recent Netcraft survey reported “its market share [is] declining closer to the 50% mark, as Microsoft … gained over 3 million hostnames“.
Sorry, I don’t see that as evidence. Look past the headline that Brian quotes, take a look at the historical figures in the survey (they are on the page Brian links to).
The Netcraft survey shows there has been no real change in market penetration since Dec 2001 for both Apache and Microsoft, and no significant change for Apache since Dec 1999. What we are seeing may be just another short term fluctuation, or it may be the start of a genuine change in market make-up. It is impossible to tell from the survey data.
Statistics can be used to prove anything, only time will tell us the truth. The same is true for Facebook, having a huge number of users today is not eviudence that they will have users tomorrow. It is dangerous to ignore the evidence of the past failures of walled gardens in the Internet space (e.g. Compuserve, Telecom Gold, MiniTel, Prestel and AOL) when compared to the flexibility of a truly open system. Only AOL survived by tearing down its walls. The dot com boom and bust saw similar results, the only really significant players in those early e-commerce days that held out were Amazon and EBay – both were early adopters of the open API approach to their data.
All this is hardly conclusive evidence, but it is why I tend more to the “fashion” side of the argument. Of course, my opinon is based on history and we all know that history is not an accurate indicator of the future. Unfortunately, for me, history is all I have (apart from my gut instinct that is).
Hi Ross
When you say that we have no evidence whether popular applications (whether it’s Facebook or indeed other widely deployed Web applications such as Internet Explorer or Apache) will be sustainable in the long term, I would agree. So there’s a need, I would suggest, to avoid making use of terms such as ‘fashionable’ and ‘fads’.
We also need to consider what we mean by the long term – is western liberal democracy as short term fad?
Brian,
I certainly agree that we should avoid emotive terms like “fashionable” or “fad”.
Ross
Hi Ross
And I’d agree that my comment that “And, unlike Apache, there is a lot of money associated with Facebook, with large companies (such as Microsoft and Google) looking to invest in the company.” was misleading. I’m very much aware that companies such as IBM and Sun have invested large amounts of money in open source software. I meant to refer to the current media interest in the financial aspects of Facebook.
I have another idea about why some software products are considered a fad:
There have, historically, been a series of social networking sites (orkut, tribe.net, etc), none of which have forefilled their promise, this leads us to expect that facebook will not forefill it’s promise either.
Stuart,
You are correct that there is historical evidence that social netwroking sites bloom then wither. I can’t count the number of sites I and my peers have experimented with only to end up totally dissallusioned:
“It is worth noting that members of those “old web” communities often experiment with social networking tools. I recall myself and many of my Apache Software Foundation colleagues getting all excited over one of the very early social networking tools, Orkut, launched in November 17, 2002. Despite our early enthusiasm, we quickly grew bored of it and returned to our tried and tested tools. Since then I (and many of my peers) have experimented with LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook, Orkut (again) and a handful of other such, so called, social networking tools. I have to say the functionality, and more importantly, the utility, of these sites has not really changed a great deal since 2002. I still stick to my four base tools within all my real community work.” (from Community and Web 2.0 Social Networking
Of course, Facebook may well be the one that breaks this trend. Personally, I don’t think it will. I believe the killer social networking platform will be the one that is fully open in terms of its data, and preferably open in terms of its source code.
I wonder how long something has to be on top before it is called successful versus being labelled a failure. Compuserve provided a unique and important service to the early internet users for a long time: it was essential to my early work with Microsoft products for getting help and information and sharing tips and techniques. I don’t know where it is now. I guess if we take a long enough baseline, every venture will be a failure. One could also look at short-term ventures: if Fb sold out now and was merged into some other facility, would it be classed as a success or failure?
That’s a really interesting point Tony. It provides yet another reason why, as Brian points out, we should not use terms like “fashion” and “fad” when critiquing new products.