But the reviews by Steven and other tech commentators seems along the lines of "No! You will NOT reorganize your communications method! Not, do you hear me?" and "What would anybody NEED such nonsense for, anyway?" and "They say it's not email, but we KNOW it's email, and so they're full of shit and so is their product!" and "*Nobody* needs this! *I* don't need it, and I can't imagine why anybody else would!"
1. FB's main comm use is the Wall; which is just an unorganized stream, and that's the most criticized part of its operation. Reworking that so you can find things in your Wall is a good idea, if it works - not a bad idea in principle.
2. This is clearly aimed at people who basically live in FB. Not at people who have 14 email accounts, their own servers, deep technical knowledge, and complex online and offline lives. For its intended audience, I am guessing at this early stage, merging their wall and their email messages and their IM messages into one organized presentation will be a good thing. For them, a very good thing. Not for us, maybe -- but FB's 500 million are, if nothing else, *not us.* My guess is that the typical satisfied future user of this system will be someone who gets most of their input from their Wall, a limited amount from their email, and a bunch from their IMs. They will love it -- and they will probably use even less of their email going forward than they do now. If they incorporate SMS as well, they've already won -- our manic hostility notwithstanding. (My daughters, for example, can only reliably be reached by telephone text message. It's the one mechanism they pay timely attention to.)
3. FB has, at 500 million members, reached that lofty plateau where all commentators are obliged, apparently as a condition of servitude, to disdain every single thing they do -- their mistakes, their attempts to make up for their mistakes, their attempts to respond to their actual customers (as opposed to the loudest complainers), their old products, their new products, every feature they have and every feature they change and every feature they leave unchanged. Their very existence is a blot upon the universe -- judging from what I read. Google would be in this boat if it hadn't managed to accidentally get positioned as Savior Against Microsoft, but that string has run out now that Microsoft is subconsciously viewed as a giant-sized loser, so Google is beginning to get the I Hate You Because You Are So Big And Successful treatment, which will only grow.
Apple should be big enough for this treatment, but its Fanboyz are effective at rear-guard action, which dampens the (much deserved on occasion) criticisms. Microsoft of course is the poster boy. IBM once occupied this chair but is now emeritus. Dell's stumbles have earned it an eventually-fatal combination of hatred and dismissive disdain.
This emotional reflex tendency has the unfortunate effect of undermining the persuasiveness of much critical commentary - sometimes unfortunately. All I know is, if Facebook announces it, it will be shot down as Dead On Arrival within minutes. It's like watching partisan politicians battling. Sometimes, of course, it deserves to be shot down, but you can't tell just from the incoming fire.
Mac McCarthy
