Tomorrow MySpace opens up its platform to developers. While MySpace have inferred that they’ve learnt from Facebook’s mistakes, in that their platform will be more resilient to spamming issues, I still can’t think of a single useful or interesting application (either for MySpace or Facebook).

Maybe it’s just that the whole social network app-development isn’t mature yet. Or maybe it’s because the current crop of social networking sites are just pointless and inane, so any application built on them is doomed to be pointless and inane as well.

I’m sure this isn’t just because I’m an anti-social bastard, but it seems like the big social networks have absolutely no purpose to an individual user. The signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous - it’s just marketers (whether they be bands or brands) hitting you incessantly with really bad marketing. It reminds me so much of UseNet in the late 1990s it hurts. It’s like being forced to listen to Barry Scott shouting at you about the benefits of Cillit Bang, on a continuous loop.

You see, social networking shouldn’t be the raison d’être of a site. It’s a feature. Add social networking to a site that already has a purpose and you might add value to that site.

One site that got it right is deviantART. To explain briefly, deviantART is an art site where you can create an account and upload your artwork/poetry (or just browse through other people’s artwork). You can organise your gallery with a brief profile and an updatable journal - so far so unexpected. The reason it works, though, is that the social networking is just a feature, albeit an important one.

You can browse round other people’s artwork and add pieces you like to your favourites. You can also leave a comment underneath someone’s piece of artwork (or on their profile). If you’re really impressed by someone’s art then you can watch them. Watching someone is like adding them as a friend in any other social networking site, but it has a purpose beyond popularity contests. Whenever someone you’re watching uploads some new artwork then you get alerted via a thumbnail preview of it.

In addition to this, there’s the expected discussion forum, chat application, etc. - but it all makes sense because it has a purpose. I’ve been a member of deviantART since November 2002 - you can see my gallery here - and there’s the difference: you’re not just looking at a page listing my likes & dislikes and how many zombies/pirates I’ve killed, you’re looking at a profile which is firmly centred around something - in this case, a gallery of artwork.

The very fact that I’ve been active on deviantART for over five years says a lot about its ability to retain my goldfish-like attention. The fact that last year I upgraded to a paid subscription (£15.18 per year, which allows you more customisable features and no adverts - and I’ll definitely be renewing that subscription) speaks volumes.

Now, if deviantART opened up its platform to application developers then that would be interesting - because once you have a platform with a purpose, then you can build something exciting and worthwhile.

There’s already been a lot of comment about Microsoft’s recent hostile takeover bid for Yahoo (not least from Google itself).

Google’s objections are based around arguments against Microsoft’s monopoly (hardly a threat when Google’s share of the search market is bigger than Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s combined). David Drummond, Google’s Senior Vice President, asked:

Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies — and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.

Could the acquisition of Yahoo! allow Microsoft — despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offenses — to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the Internet?

While I agree with Drummond’s synopsis of Microsoft’s strategy of creating proprietary monopolies I don’t think this is going to be a problem here.

Firstly, Microsoft will certainly pursue this strategy when they already dominate a market, but when faced with competition they can be forced to “play nice”.

Take the rise of Firefox - since Mozilla’s standards-compliant browser gained 20% or so of the market, Microsoft have started building standards-compliance into Internet Explorer. Admittedly, the latest announcement about IE8’s arse-about-face browser versioning metadata shows that their proposed implementation is terrible, but there’s no doubting that IE7 is more standards-compliant than IE6 was, and the news that IE8 passes the Acid2 test is very encouraging indeed.

So, when faced with a significant competitor who are fighting on an “open/standards-compliant” ticket, Microsoft will tow the line.

Secondly, Yahoo’s big problem is that, in order to compete with Google, it needs to become less like Microsoft. If Yahoo is bought by Microsoft then Yahoo will fail - because of all the things that David Drummond mentions. And most fundamentally, as Umair Haque says:

Neither company has the DNA to take on Google (let alone the massive number of startups waiting in the wings). Sure, they might collectively have the resources.

But DNA will always constrain YahooSoft from utilizing those resources in ways that create value.

Bill Gates might be thinking that if he buys Yahoo then he can add their 20% of the search market to Microsoft’s 12% to make a combined 32% against Google’s 54% share, but given a Microsoftization of Yahoo, the chances are that Yahoo’s users will jump ship to Google, giving Google a worrying 74% market share.

I say “worrying” because, while I really like some of the things Google have done, that doesn’t mean that I want them in a position of unquestionable dominance. At the moment they are undoubtedly the largest search engine, but Yahoo are still a visible competitor - an alternative if I want one (particularly for APIs).

Finally it would be a shame to see Yahoo subsumed by Microsoft. I don’t want to log into Flickr with a Microsoft Passport or Windows Live ID (which would surely be the result of a takeover).

While Yahoo are still struggling behind Google, they are doing some good stuff. Their online applications such as Flickr are good, and they actually engage with the web community (they put on good presentations at d.Construct 2006 and @media 2006 in London).

I think all that would end if they were bought by Microsoft.