A couple of days ago at the launch of Facebook's F8 platform - which lets users embed other services inside their page on the popular social networking site - GigaOM's Liz Gannes said that founder Mark Zuckerberg was "channeling Steve Jobs". It wasn't the first time somebody had linked the Apple founder with the famously casual 20-something. Such comments have made me think about Facebook, and whether it was going to be a new sort of Apple.
What do I mean? Well, on a very basic level, the site clearly values design in a way that few of its competitors do. But that's just surface appearance: really the link I see is that much of Facebook's value lies in what it isn't - it's not MySpace. It's easy to see a sort of Microsoft v Apple situation by comparing the messy-but-corporate behemoth that is MySpace versus the "independent", smoothness of Facebook.
On the other hand, it's tempting to think that opening up the site to third parties means that Zuckerberg is actually using the Microsoft model - build an ecosystem of partners reliant on your system in order to create a large community with a vested interest in its success. But I think the Apple corollary works better, because for all the excitement about F8, Facebook's new approach isn't about pushing information out, it's about bringing it in. It doesn't create a solar system of planets which rely on each other to keep in orbit, but scoops everything up and dumps it onto a closed system; Facebook becomes my homepage, into which everything else feeds.
What's the next step for Facebook? To become the biggest social network on the web? To steal MySpace's market away from it?
If that's the case, then I wonder if there isn't something that Zuckerberg can learn from the successes and failures of Steve Jobs. Apple focuses its energies on users who are prepared to pay extra for the Apple brand; as a result it's never going to be #1, and is actually pretty happy and successful in that role, even if some users wish everyone would switch from Windows. Right now Facebook's owners look like they dream of becoming the dominant platform on the web... but it's a tough business. Social networking is increasingly becoming commoditised: for the vast majority of users, it's becoming a utility. Trying to make it the start page of choice is a big ideal, but you can't be everything to everybody.
So Facebook is gaining traction with older users, those of college age and beyond (certainly a lot of the growth I've seen in the past few months is in the 30+ bracket). But will it start to look to the next generation of users too? Will they try and get the teenagers inside the site before they become too attached to rivals?
Well, if Zuckerberg knows that part of Facebook's appeal is that it isn't MySpace, then he should also remember that part of the appeal of MySpace for teenagers is precisely because it isn't Facebook. The users don't much care that the site is owned by Rupert Murdoch; it is just part of their evolution on the web. MySpace is about teenage rebellion; ugliness and defiantly folded arms. Facebook is much more popular among those of college age and older - it's more grown up, and looking at it isn't like pouring acid into your eyeballs.
However it's always tempting to chase younger people, since they are the ones with more spare time to put into pushing up clicks and traffic. That's great news for advertisers, but is actually less valuable than it seems. Facebook might overtake MySpace, but I don't see much point in it trying to commandeer the teenage market because it should chase value, not eyeballs.
Being good doesn't always make you the biggest kid in school, but that doesn't mean you can't be successful all the same.
