Obviously I made a poor choice of words in my original post, but I decided to leave it since it would be unfair to reframe the conversation after the fact.
However by responding to my post you force me to further reiterate the exact same thing once again in no uncertain terms.
At no point did I mean to imply that Facebook is in any way open. If "embrace and extend" does not make that clear then how about The Godfather Part 2 embrace [kiss] of death.
> ... but your theory starts to fall apart ...
Again, my theory is that Facebook is aware of what is going on around it, open or closed, public or private, and uses it to its advantage. And so far, nothing that is "open" or "distributed" is competing in any meaningful way with Facebook. This is very very different from what AOL did.
However by responding to my post you force me to further reiterate the exact same thing once again in no uncertain terms.
At no point did I mean to imply that Facebook is in any way open. If "embrace and extend" does not make that clear then how about The Godfather Part 2 embrace [kiss] of death.
> ... but your theory starts to fall apart ...
Again, my theory is that Facebook is aware of what is going on around it, open or closed, public or private, and uses it to its advantage. And so far, nothing that is "open" or "distributed" is competing in any meaningful way with Facebook. This is very very different from what AOL did.