By now just about everyone has at least hear about Diaspora, the social-networking startup that has garnered quite a bit press in the past few weeks with their ambitious plans. The Diaspora website promises that their platform will be “the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network”. That’s a tall order, but no one ever becomes a champion by dreaming small. I wish the Diaspora team luck and I suspect that they’re going to produce some very interesting and exciting software. That being said, there are a couple of reasons that lead me to believe – at this juncture – that Diaspora is not going to catch on outside a small core of users.
Most People Don’t Care About “Privacy”
This is the sort of statement that makes people immediately object, which is why the quotes are there. Most people do care about privacy, but they care about the privacy of important data. They care about the privacy of their credit reports, their bank accounts, the personal files on their computer, their shopping habits and other things that have to do with…money. I don’t believe that the average Facebook user cares about the “privacy” of their favorite movie, or the size of the Farmville farm, or who their Facebook friends are or which ridiculous Facebook groups they’ve joined. If your Facebook account were hacked tomorrow, the bad guys would know a lot of useless trivia about you – and that’s about it.
Facebook is Cheap and Easy
Facebook doesn’t charge a dime for access to their service. Whether you have five friends or five hundred, whether you upload one photo or a thousand, you pay the same – nothing. There’s no software to install, no drivers to configure, no firewall issues to resolve – you start a web browser and you use Facebook for free.
Diaspora’s model appears to have two options: host your own server or rent someone else’s. Users wanting the free option can host their own server; they’ll need to install the Diaspora software – a web server – on their home computer. Windows users will need to navigate Windows Firewall and their router settings to make sure that Diaspora traffic can actually reach their computer. These users also face the possibility of elevated bills from their ISP if they get too popular and start using a lot of bandwidth. Users who would rather let someone else manage all that will almost certainly have to pay for access. Based on what we know right now, Diaspora may be cheap or easy, but not both.
Return On Investment
Even in the face of superior choices, consumers tend to remain where they are. Facebook’s users are already invested in that ecosystem; they have uploaded hundreds (or thousands) of photos, they have connected with dozens (or hundreds) of friends. Decamping from Facebook means having to rebuild an online presence somewhere else. It also means sacrificing some of those connections, because some of their friends will not follow them to their new online home. Leaving Facebook means investing hours to create a new online home and reduced contact with friends and acquaintances. Those are not insurmountable barriers; Facebook lured users away from MySpace in the time-honored tradition of capitalism; they built a better mousetrap. Facebook’s clean, professional interface was the polar opposite of the appalling layouts that were common on MySpace. Perhaps most importantly, Facebook offered more functionality and was easier to use. But in that circumstance, jumping from MySpace to Facebook resulted in an immediate and visible improvement to the quality of one’s online experience. Diaspora, as of yet, has no such enticement.
I am sure that the Diaspora platform is going to attract a small but dedicated core of users. I also suspect that it will accomplish all or most of its technological goals. But I don’t see the same sort of, well, diaspora taking placing akin to the mass exodus from MySpace to Facebook. Facebook offers a great service – easy connectivity to a large number of friends and acquaintances – at zero cost and near-zero effort.