First of all, I'm not sure what calling social networks a "fad" really means. Second, it just sounds pathetic when Steve Ballmer is the one saying it (hint, MS CEO). Afterall, it's the basis for one of the fastest-growing new media giants' success. But there's something more going on here than a PR move against Google.
Here's the NYTimes blog post I'm referring to (don't worry, it's short...)
Two of the highlights:
"Mr. Schmidt (Google CEO) did say that over the next year, Google is planning to use information it has about the connections between its users, something techies call the "social graph," to improve searches and other Google services."
"There have been reports that Google will not only use its social graph information for its own services but it will also create a system for other companies to use the same data -- in other words, to "out-open" Facebook."
Google beat all the other search engines in large part because they recognized the power and inherent knowledge embodied in the act of people linking to other people. Their searches were the best because they based their ratings on how people choose to link to one another (among other characteristics, I'm sure).
But from the looks of it, "Social Networking" has taken on new meaning. Now, it appears, the term refers to the type of interconnections possible in MySpace and Facebook.
But aren't these derivative as well? What made/makes them unique? The character of their databases? The content of their databases? Their "openness?"
What ever happened to Friendster? Considering its history, I could see reason in one calling MySpace and Facebook fads, but Social Networking, a "FAD?"
This NYTimes blog post is ripe with uncertainty, and I think it's more characteristic of the times (no pun intended) than an isolated instance of a semantically challenged batch of CEOs.
I also think its interesting to note that I initially read this article in the print edition of the Times, although it was in a block on the page labeled "Bits," and re-prints highlights of the nytimes technology blog.
Talk about the blurring of media boundaries. How much can I trust the veracity of its claims? Do I treat it with the skepticism of a normal blog post, or do I give credit deserving of the NYTimes brand?
