5 comments

• 

  Geoff Livingston

  1 year ago

  I hate social graphs. They make no sense to me. It's more gobbledy gook buzz from 2.0. That being said, a very nice post defining social platforms.
  reply
• 

  Nick O'Neill

  1 year ago

  Gotta disagree with you Geoff,
  
  I agree that "Social Graphs" may be a product of Web 2.0 (another crappy buzzword), but it does have a theoretical value. I won't repeat what has already been posted but as social platforms expand beyond social networks and eventually reach the mobile world and potentially the gaming platforms, I would suggest that our "social graphs" will become increasingly relevant.
  reply
• 

  Sebastian Troen

  1 year ago

  Interesting post Nick, but I'd like to suggest that the idea of Social Platforms extends well beyond facilitating the viral distribution of applications. That the current crop of platforms revolves around this does not limit the definition of Social Platforms.
  
  In my opinion, Social Platforms leverage the power of social connectivity to facilitate social connections (aka the Social Graph), which often entails the point-to-point and viral distribution of things (for the sake of argument, let's call them "Social Things"), such as applications, photos, notes, thoughts, ideas, information, etc. To me, status updates are a great example of a Social Thing that needs a Social Platform to survive and be really valuable.
  reply
• 

  Dan Lester

  1 year ago

  I agree with Sebastian. The distribution of an app is really a side-effect of the most important part of a social platform - that is the ability to interact with my ready-made connections within the app. For example, a stand-alone game is not making use of the social platform until it lets me compare my score with others', or challenge them in some other form. Of couse, using such features implicity distributes the app by making friends aware of it, but that was not the primary aim.
  
  Furthermore, I think we should really be talking about 'social distribution'. To me (and I accept others have different definitions), viral distribution is when the main function of the app inherently spreads itself - such as a vampire bite on a friend, or Nicknaming someone, each in the form of an invite. An app that just has a separate invite function is leveraging the social graph to spread itself, but I would not call that viral. Just my thoughts!
  reply
• 

  Rodrigo Peñalba

  1 year ago

  i believe there is already an inherent social graph we use everyday: the contact list in our email account.
  
  Sometimes it updates itself (like in Gmail), it has all our real life contacts, some virtual contacts too, and keeps and archive of all our activities online with, in must cases, direct conections to real life activities; and serves for viral uses too.
  reply