Blackbird, Rainman, Facebook and the Watery Web

October 9, 2007

Embed:

I've seen a number of people make reference to Facebook's application platform without knowing a lot of background about some historical examples that might be useful to learn from. So, since I remember a good bit of info about these things, I figured I'd share it for future reference.

In 1995, Microsoft believed that its proprietary development tool, codenamed "Blackbird" would be the dominant platform for creating rich online experiences. While it would eventually evolve into a tool that created reasonably standard HTML, Blackbird's ability to make attractive and pleasing aesthetic experiences for MSN was considered a no-brainer to replace regular HTML for anything that needed to seem polished. It wasn't an unreasonable assumption at a time when most browsers were showing ugly text on a plain grey background with almost no advanced layout or design.

In 1999, AOL believed that its proprietary development tool, called RAINMAN (Remote Automated INformation MANager) would be the dominant platform for creating rich online experiences. While it would eventually be replaced by tools that created reasonably standard HTML, Rainman's ability to make attractive and pleasing aesthetic experiences that integrated seamlessly into the AOL client was an effective replacement for HTML for tens of millions of users who wanted a polished and social first experience on the Net in the late 90s as they first got online. This wasn't an unreasonable constraint to impose on the experience at a time when having a rich interactive experience meant downloading complicated browser plugins for video, or configuring temperamental client software just to read email.

AOL was always secretive about Rainman, and remains so to this day, even though Rainman has been largely retired in favor of standard HTML, which has let AOL open up much of its proprietary content to the public web. But Microsoft really wanted to get the word out about Blackbird. There were even conferences for developers, to promote Blackbird for their applications. Ironically, MSN would reverse direction from Blackbird almost immediately after launch, eventually building much of its original content around a small vector plugin called FutureSplash. One big reason you have Flash in your browser right now is because MSN aggressively distributed millions of copies of the FutureSplash plugin with all of their client software, and eventually, with Windows itself. But that's a whole 'nother story.

Back in late 1995, the venerable Release 1.0 newsletter offered an analysis of Blackbird that's well worth reading in its entirety. Some highlights:

Microsoft's challenge is to make MSN flourish soon, so that it won't be eclipsed by more open systems, making Blackbird irrelevant, or at least obsolescent. ... The question at hand is whether Microsoft's networked-application architecture makes it beyond MSN's walls and becomes more commonly used. The innovations Netscape is introducing, described above, make this a difficult task. This is where the battle between proprietary operating systems and the Internet is being fought.

...

Microsoft wants Blackbird to be an inviting environment for third-party tools. The pace of technological change will help. Connectivity will change all standalone applications, making many obsolete. With Blackbird, Microsoft is attempting to offer traditional Windows applications a viable path to re-create and re-validate themselves in the networked world. ... Blackbird has its own representation format, the Blackbird Markup Language (BML), which is a variant of HTML enhanced to be OLE 2.0-aware.

In 2007, Facebook has released its proprietary development platform, codenamed F8. Blackbird was to provide better presentation, and Rainman promised better social abilities, than open standards of their time made possible. F8 promises a combination of both aesthetic and social capabilities, with the key feature of the platform (presented as an "innovation") being the social APIs for friends lists. F8's ability to create broadly-distributed social applications that integrate seamlessly into the Facebook environment offers an experience that, for now, exceeds what publicly-available social APIs can do. It's not an unreasonable behavior that people are building and using applications on the platform today.

  • Just like Blackbird, Facebook's APIs offer more features than the available open standards do today.
  • Just like Blackbird, Facebook's APIs have inspired conferences and development toolkits and a lot of reactive responses in the industry.
  • Just like Rainman, Facebook APIs offer native integration with social functions like buddy lists.
  • Just like Rainman, the user experience for integrating those applications is far easier than the equivalent behavior on the open web.
  • Just like Rainman, Facebook's APIs support applications that have millions of users, users that the conventional wisdom says could never be displaced.

It's not true to say that Facebook is the new AOL, and it's oversimplification to say that Facebook's API is the new Blackbird, or the new Rainman. But Facebook is part of the web. Think of the web, of the Internet itself, as water. Proprietary platforms based on the web are ice cubes. They can, for a time, suspend themselves above the web at large. But over time, they only ever melt into the water. And maybe they make it better when they do.

Some links:

  • We're opening up the Social Graph. Six Apart, where I work, is committed to helping create, promote, develop for, and popularize the open standards that will be needed for helping grow social platforms from Facebook or anyone else.
  • The O'Reilly Radar Research Report on Facebook's application platform. Interestingly, given the Release 1.0 report I quoted above, that publication has evolved into Release 2.0, which is now an O'Reilly publication.
  • Jason Kottke on "Facebook vs. AOL". He covers much of the fundamentals that I've discussed here, and helped inspire me to offer some more concrete examples of the history of these sorts of efforts.
  • Somehow I'd missed it at the time, but Scott Heiferman had drawn the analogy to Rainman first. I still feel people aren't very familiar with that point in web history.
  • Graphing Social Patterns, the conference on Facebook and its applications that Dave McClure is currently hosting.
  • The circle of web life, another similar historical lesson.

2 TrackBacks

OpenSocial: Game On! from Online Community Report on November 3, 2007 7:21 AM

Google announced OpenSocial this week, which, as my ForumOne colleague Kurt describes is: a set of web API's that will let developers write applications that plug into any participating social network (launch partners include Salesforce, LinkedIn, Nin Read More

Proprietary Platforms are Like Ice Cubes from Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog on September 20, 2008 10:39 PM

by: Lynette WebbI really like this analogy. It touches on an interesting debate too… although I personally agree 100% open always trumps 100% closed in the end, nowadays it’s not always so black and white. Services can be open in... Read More

16 Comments

well said Anil...great trip down memory lane.

Anil, have you applied similar reasoning to Silverlight and Apollo/AIR?

You say AOL was pushing rainman in '99? My manual is from '94. I thought they'd gone full html long before '99.

I picked 1999 as a point when AOL and Rainman were at their peak. Rainman as a tool dates back to at least ~1993, and was still in active use as recently as 2 years ago, from what I've heard. That would put 1999 right in the middle of the timeline.

What happens when people are tired of swimming in the web's water? Can the Facebook iceberg (or island) become a permanent residence?

There was no such thing as social network fatigue when AOL's walled garden debuted, rather people were hungry to explore outside of AOL's limits. But what's to say that Facebook doesn't offer a sustainable alternative to the people who don't want to keep up with 29+ webapps listed in your "Elsewhere" column, and instead just manage it all in one place?

Adam, the only way they'll be able to manage it all in one place is if there are open standards for it. Unless you're thinking all non-Facebook-based applications will just disappear?

Of course non-Facebook based apps won't disappear, but Facebook may be able to just replicate all the popular ones within the facebook ecosystem...an FB version of Flickr, Upcoming, Del.icio.us, etc...

My thoughts keep coming back to Apple....if your closed system is designed well enough (and believe me, Facebook still has a long way to go), people can/will settle for being locked into closed systems.

I guess my point is if the ice cube is cold enough, it doesn't necessarily have to melt in the web's water...we've just yet to see any truly cool closed systems.

ps: Despite my above comments I'm hoping Six Apart, Brad Fitzpatrick, et al do a kick-ass job of opening up the social graph. I'd much rather have a truly open social network system dominate the ocean vs. a really large Facebook glacier.

Certain ideas take hold not just because of their feature set or what they offer, but because they're at the right place at the right time. The difference between now and 1995 or 1999 is large. I decided to quit my job and start developing Facebook applications when I signed up for Facebook a few months ago and realized that my life's many distinct groups of friends and acquaintances were all present. Within one week of signing up I had 300 friends who represented about 80% of my "social graph". This is what it's like to be a Canadian Facebook user.


Ben

Ben, I'm not questioning the distribution and reach of Facebook, especially in any Canadian community. What I'm saying is, you're limited in what you're able to do. You only have the APIs they offer you. You only have, yes, the audience they offer you. You couldn't keep a list of friends in sync between services, or use your choice of services for different features.

For example: Let's assume 100 percent of your friends were on Facebook. Would they all use it for event invites instead of Evite or some other service? Would they all abandon Craigslist or some other site and only find apartments through Facebook? Do you think Plentyoffish dies off and all dating online happens through Facebook?

I don't. I think that's incredibly unlikely. In fact, I think the multiplicity of services will increase, not decrease. And your applications will be more powerful, have more potential, and be more successful if you can work with all of them. And the apps that compete with you which recognize that potential will take advantage of the opportunity if you don't.

Anil Dash, you are the man!

Anil,

I'm already seeing some attrition among my friends from flickr to Facebook, even though Facebook's photo product doesn't come close to flickr in terms of functionality.

They've got a huge recirculation machine that does a good job of fostering the interaction which is part of the reason to put photos up in the first place.

More thoughts here:
http://blog.agrawals.org/2007/10/10/the-power-of-the-social-graph/

Facebook is a force to be reckoned with just as AOL was...and still would be today if it hadn't been for broadband. AOL is a perfect parallel to Facebook because it was so sticky. People stuck with AOL because all their friends were on it and because of the chat rooms et al. This is not to say that there won't be other plays in this space (Google being the biggest threat), but at least for now, it would appear that the social networking arena is Facebook's to lose. As long as they can keep up with shifts in consumer behavior--most notably within the emerging mobile space--I think they've got a good shot at not just floating in the sea for a long time, but becoming a major landmass.

Facebook will not be able to survive independent of the many other social networks because as it stands now Facebook is simply a destination where you go back and forth. OpenSocial is a set of standards soon to be adapted by 99% of the websites on the internet thus making it the default API. Facebook will be seen as a contract with limitations while OpenSocial will be seen as a convience with unlimited possibilities.

Strictly speaking (I worked at AOL for five years and I don't think any of this is under NDA any more), RAINMAN was only the scripting language that was used to populate pages, which were instantiations of templates written in the ATOM stream programming language. In 1996 ATOM templates were written either directly in code for the smart things or using a text mode interface; a visual designer for Windows came a while later (outside the US at least).

But Facebook is completely the new AOL in everything from it's slightly kooky technology to its ad-focussed business model that misses why its users come to the site to the world domination outlook. I get a lot of flashbacks!

But - Open Social is nothing except a widget standard until it lets me cross-link my LJ graph with my Linked In graph. *That* would be the open social graph. Use OpenID for it, for extra points.

but facebook makes html

Leave a comment