Please Let’s Have No More Unfriendly Comments About FriendFeed

While it may not have carved out the giant slice of the social media pie that Twitter has, FriendFeed  has something truly exceptional: The individuals who make up the FF community. It is a community that is largely comprised of  good-hearted, wicked-witted and fierce-brained souls who are deeply loyal to each other.

That FriendFeed is special is something I firmly believe — even as a former member of that particular community. (A status revealed in the interest of full disclosure. Similarly, it should be noted that my reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the service or the other folks using it. If you have a year where two people to whom your family is close die in rapid succession, you too might consider spending much more time connecting with those important to you face-to-face as opposed to screen-to-screen.)

But that community is also one that has been feeling more than a little worried ever since Facebook bought up FriendFeed, a feeling perhaps best summarized at the time it happened in this witty yet wise post by Louis Gray.

Thus, it is completely understandable that the community took some offense to Robert Scoble’s comment on the current state of FriendFeed the other day. If someone hurts your friends, you get angry. You defend your friends. Simple as that. And that’s just what people did – some eloquently and some in a more brusque manner. But the reactions to Scoble’s comment that can be glimpsed below the initial post demonstrate what is best about FriendFeed – it is an excellent forum for rapid interchange and discourse rather than just a way to broadcast your own “look at me, look at me!” message. (I’m looking at you Twitter.)

It seems unlikely that Scoble realized quite how disrespectful the tone of his comment seemed or how massive the impact of one of FF’s foremost cheerleaders seemingly turning on it would be — though he almost certainly has an inkling of it now.

Consider the impassioned and articulate response to Scoble crafted by FFer Lindsay Donaghe:

“<plea>
Please, Robert, I know that you’re disappointed in what has happened to FriendFeed and you feel like you need to take out your frustrations on something, but it’s time to take your own advice and leave quietly if you’re going to leave. FriendFeed may not serve your particular needs anymore but your needs seem to be very specific, decidedly not mainstream, and difficult to comply to. That doesn’t mean that FriendFeed is not a valuable service to others with different needs. You don’t have to leave, but there’s no point in making things harder for the rest of us who support the service by trying to hammer the nails in the coffin while we are still pushing up the the lid for air.

You are actively fulfilling your own prophecy by chasing people away from FriendFeed and inciting people there to unsub and block you so that your feed is less and less interesting. And then you are insulting the rest of us by declaring that all the geeks have left when it’s your own efforts in sabotage (or lack of in pruning your feeds) that are making your experience worse, while claiming that you’re trying to spur someone into action to be FriendFeed’s new hero. But we don’t have that knight in shining armor to champion for FriendFeed and return it to its former glory. If anything, you were the most likely candidate. Now we just want to be left alone to use FriendFeed the way we are comfortable to using it. It’s time to stop the abuse.
</plea>”

How many other online communities would inspire commentary with that much depth of feeling and intelligence behind it?

Only Connect…Or Only Collect? The Whole Follower Question

“Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect…”

E.M. Forster

INTRODUCTION

While it is probably unwise to begin a blog post by quoting superior writer, it’s a mistake I’m going to repeat twice, because it was the brilliant Corvida Raven, whose thoughtful musings served to kick start my little grey cells and nimble typing fingers. She asked the following question in terms of social media networks:

Everything is about connecting to others, but have you considered the type of connection you’d like to have with people?

FIRST A DISCLAIMER:

I’m not going to tip-toe through the minefield and muck of “suggested Twitter users” – dangerous territory already well covered elsewhere- like here for a start.

MOTIVE IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION

Hopefully the most common answer to Corvida’s question is ” a meaningful one.”

But from where I sit, the type of connection a person has with someone on a social media network such as Twitter can depend on their motive for engaging with and being engaged by that network in the first place. Are they trying to connect – connect to ideas and increase your knowledge? Connect to people with whom they can discuss shared passions or debate differing outlooks? Or are they looking for something else entirely?

I SHALL LEAD YOU ?

Are they looking to boost their ego? More and more there seems to be a sharp increase in people simply looking to amass numbers – be elected electronic prom queen so-to-speak – rather than actually connect. A sort of  “Mine’s bigger than yours” mentality- only this time having to do with numbers of Twitter followers.

It’s a mindset that’s been encouraged by tools like twittergrader.com – something that was meant to be helpful in measuring marketing reach (itself a dubious prospect in terms of what these networks were designed for) that has instead somehow been twisted into a popularity meter for many a person.

You know you’ve seen those tweets – “I’m ranked number __ in the city of Oz.” And frankly it’s disheartening.

BUSINESSES TOO

And that’s just regarding individuals, that says nothing about the unfortunate new inroads spammers and unscrupulous marketers are trying to take.

It’s getting worse too. If you don’t believe me, take a look at more expert opinions – such as the one tweeted by PurpleCar (who writes quite a bit about online behaviour and does it very well)  yesterday when speaking of www.tweepme.com, an “opt-in group” to help rapidly build a base of followers.   “this is a total travesty” she tweeted, followed by “what’s the point of tweepme after a while? Mainstreamers will realize you can rig the system and not use twitter. Follow rates lost value”

EFFECT OF COLLECTORS

It seems to me that trend of collecting has had a tremendously negative impact, having lead to all kinds of dubious services and narcissistic behaviour. Collectors will pander, flirt and provoke shamelessly just to raise their numbers. This kind of tactic is very seductive but ultimately cheapens whatever “connection” there might be. How meaningful is your connection if you are one of thousands?

The truth of this is hammered home if you take into consideration a recent, beautifully crafted commentary on Posterous concerning Dunbar’s number.

In it Melanie McBride sagely noted:

“there are only so many people we can treat reasonably and thoughtfully given the fixed capacity of the human OS and available relationship RAM.“

IN THE END

If you are in fact considering the type of connection that you want to have online, if you want to have meaning, doesn’t it seem better to focus on quality than quantity?

Ironically, given his massive legion of followers, Robert Scoble may have best summed up why it is best not to be a collector and not to focus so much on the size of your following:

If you define yourself by who is following you you’ll always feel inadequate. After all, you can’t control your followers and any idiot can follow people. But, define yourself by who you are following and you can really build something of high value.

In other words, isn’t it best for the tenor of these social networks and your experience on them that people try — really try — to connect and not just to collect?

iPhone? Not I.

With all the fanfare attached to it, you’d think the arrival of the iPhone in Canada was the Second Coming.

True, it’s been a long wait. Our neighbours to the south have had access to that sleek, touch-screen goodness for almost a year.

And frankly, like most Apple products, it is a beautiful, stylish piece of technology. Just look at it.

As with most of the items masterminded by brilliant British-born industrial designer Jonathan Ive, so deservedly feted by the Design Museum in London for his body of work, the result is innovative, clean and instantly covetable.

But like many others living in Canada, I will resist the siren song of this particular piece of technology.

Why Resist?

It’s not because of Apple. Indeed the powers-that-be at Apple are very canny about promoting the brand and making their products must-haves.

As noted by the still-in-beta-site BrandDoozie, Apple’s brand is powerful and has an amazingly loyal following:

“From their iconic logo to iPod’s campaign of gyrating silhouettes against a kaleidoscope of color, Apple is more than a brand—it’s a culture.”

And the fact they’ve managed to do that generally by buzz rather than by expensive marketing campaigns.

[Tangent: For an alternative take on Apple's brand that is quite intriguing, take a look at what Robert Scoble had to say last winter in a post entitled The Brand Promise of Apple.]

So, Why Resist Again?

Two words: Rogers Communications.

Rarely has a company with exclusive rights to a product managed to generate so much negative buzz for a hot commodity so quickly.

Because it is the only phone provider in Canada that uses the GSM network required by the device, Rogers is the only provider that can carry Apple’s 3G iPhone.

And unlike in the United States where unlimited data plans are offered, Rogers decided to lock iPhone purchasers into a three-year contract. And according to CTV.ca, the initial pricing was…less than ideal.

“The cheapest plan under that structure includes 400 megabytes of data, 150 minutes of weekday talk time and unlimited evenings and weekends for $60 per month plus fees and taxes.”

The Result?

A Major backlash. A website called ruinediphone.com sprang up and led to massive online petitioning, the organization of a protest rally and a campaign to get many Rogers customers to drop the corporation as a provider.

The protest has had an impact. As noted by the blog Load This with Steve Tilley, earlier this week Rogers decided to offer iPhone buyers the chance to choose their own standard voice plan and then add on a data plan allowing for 6 GB of mobile data a month for an addition $30.

But this has been a bit like throwing a bucket of water on a three-alarm fire. Gillian Shaw, of The Vancouver Sun, noted that this appeasement has not been entirely effective:

“The numbers of disgruntled consumers voicing their ire at www.ruinediphone.com continued to climb in the wake of Rogers’ announcement, aimed at cooling the controversy before today’s launch of the new phone.”

Who Was Smart About This?

Bell Canada. They looked at the negative publicity that Rogers was receiving and did something clever.

As of August 8th, they’re going to offer Samsung’s version of the iPhone, the Instinct (currently available in the US via Sprint), and they’re going to offer it with reasonable rates. Look at the comparison that the Globe and Mail offered on the two phones:

“The Samsung Instinct, which has many of the same features as the Apple iPhone, differs from the iPhone in one major way: Its monthly price plan, which will dramatically undercut the iPhone plan announced last week by Rogers Wireless.

A subscriber can…pay less than $40 a month for a modest voice plan accompanied by an unlimited Internet on Bell’s high-speed data network.”

Conclusion

So despite my love of Apple’s blend of solid technology and superior design, it looks like in this case, I’m going to have to wait and follow my Instinct instead of biting into Apple’s latest.

Part of it is the better pricing- that’s for sure. But a company clever enough to be responsive to another company’s disgruntled customers and to generate good PR by being more reasonable about rates?

They just seem smarter than the other guys. And a tad more reasonable.

What about you? Would you go along with Rogers’s terms to get the new iPhone? or would you be satisfied by a Samsung? What would/will you do?