How Facebook Learned from AOL's Mistakes

So, AIM is dead.  That's AOL Instant Messenger.  Let me back up.

In the olden days, if you wanted to send an instant message, it wasn't built into your favorite websites like Google and Facebook (they didn't even exist yet).  You had a program on your computer that you would open, and it would sit on the side of your screen, and make door opening and closing noises every time one of your friends came online.  For the first time, you could send a message and get an instant reply.  It was very cool.  Friday night, the dorm would be filled with the "BLING BLING" of messages being sent & received.

Then they started adding features.  Audio chat - you could now speak with someone using the internet.  Stock and news tickers at the bottom of your screen.  You could customize the sounds, so I gave mine the voice of a palladin from Warcraft II.  "Sire?"  Incoming message from a friend.  When I sent a reply: "Defending your honor."  Damn right.

Other companies saw how cool (read: popular) this was and wanted to copy it.  Microsoft.  Yahoo.  But they didn't just copy; they made their instant messengers compatible with AIM.  AIM didn't like that, of course, because they wanted to defend their market share.  Granted, it was a free product, and they never did much with advertising, nor did they ever really turn it into a corporate communication solution, but their attitude was always "I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack."  So, they kept changing their protocols to deny access to MSN Messenger (later Windows Live Messenger), YIM, etc.  This turned into a vicious cycle of "it works, no it doesn't."  Finally, the parties declared a truce.  AOL promised to open up their API and let the other big boys in . . . except they never did.  In the mean time Microsoft and Yahoo grew their own ecosystems.  Then along came Facebook, Google, and Skype, and changed the entire game.  You no longer need a dedicated app running on your computer, but if you do, you get video chat.

AIM, meanwhile, didn't really do anything.  Facebook and Google opened up their APIs but AOL never did.  The comeptitors kept adding features but AIM stayed the same.  It grew more and more irrelevant to the point where I turned it off a few months ago.

So, how is Facebook learning from AOL's mistake?  First: open up your platform and let everyone play.  Not just with instant messenger, but with apps, timeline, personal information, everything.  There are some amazing apps that tie in with Facebook and have a ton of users (eg. Farmville).  The result: Facebook controlls the playground because Facebook IS the playground.  Even when I'm on other sites--even when I build other sites, Facebook is still there.  (Want to create an account on ACWA.org?  Log in with Facebook.)

AOL's bigger mistake, of course, was clinging to a dead medium (dialup) long after it was obvious.  In fact, AOL never really got the hang of the World Wide Web; inside AOL, content was relegated to its own little area, much like Compuserve (which AOL bought).  Even after they bought Netscape, they never really figured out how to monetize it.  Facebook, on the other hand, has embraced the mobile platform in a way that no one could have even imagined in 2004.  And when the next major platform comes along, I'm sure they'll embrace that too.  This isn't simply a story of "we came along later;" Facebook has shown a flexibility and willingness to grow even after it because a huge company - traits that, if they ever existed at AOL, died in the 1990's.

The point?  AOL not only had a cool technology, but a monopoly, and they blew it.  They blew it because they insisted on a closed-door strategy.  Facebook has beaten them (among others) because of its willingness to share.  Because it understood that when you let other people play in your sandbox, they are in your sandbox.

So, if you have a cool, popular technology that everyone wants to use, let them.  Don't fight the thing that will make you rich and famous.