ft.com/techblog

MySpace’s decision to block some content from Photobucket today has brought out the predictable rhetoric.

Photobucket calls it an attack on freedom of expression. MySpace says it is just trying to stop nakedly commercial excercises that ruin its users’ experience.

The more interesting long-term question, though, is one of business (and technology) strategy: does News Corp truly want MySpace to be an open platform? It says it does: you can embed anything on your MySpace page, as long as it meets certain rules (it can’t be commercial, violate someone else’s copyright, or breach safety and security.)

What use is an open platform, though, if no one else can make money from it? Imagine if Microsoft had decided that it was fine for other software developers to write software that runs on Windows, but they couldn’t sell their wares. Google doesn’t limit its Google Maps API to non-commercial uses only. Who is going to innovate on MySpace if News Corp gets to keep all the profits?

Naturally, any number of Web 2.0 start-ups (and their financial backers) are desperate to get access to the MySpace community. This is Mitchell Kertzman of Hummer Winblad (whose investments include Widgetbox, a directory of application widgets that you can embed on other web pages):

In general, successful platforms allow an ecosystem of partners to make money on the platform - MySpace seems less interested in that. They have a tremendous franchise, but it may be an opportunity for competitors to gain share by offering a more partner-friendly ecosystem.

If it so chooses, it’s fine for MySpace to operate as a closed system - that’s the route Apple has chosen with iTunes. But if it truly wants to be open, it needs to come up with a better proposition for third-party websites. A willingness to negotiate ad-sharing deals would be a start. It also needs to be much clearer about how it interprets its highly opaque "non-commercial" rule.

April 12th, 2007 in Internet | Permalink