The New Datastream Aggregators, FriendFeed and Standards
by Nik Cubrilovic on June 26, 2008

FriendFeed is an example of a new type of aggregator where multiple data types, or streams, for a user can be bought together. The difference between this new type of aggregator and the standard RSS feed-reader type of aggregator is that the later does a good job of supporting a set of formats that are almost standard, while the new aggregators such as FriendFeed are building in app-specific support.

The disadvantages of this model are that only the selected applications can participate in the aggregator and network, a disadvantage to smaller providers and a position that would only cement the place of the more popular services. In addition, service-specific API support would not scale very well, as every API update and nuance would have to be tracked, maintained and debugged.

A very important issue is how feed and data types should be standardized to allow all application providers to participate in aggregator ecosystems such as FriendFeed, rather than just the 41 selected and supported.

The 41 services provided are just feeds, be it plain descriptive XML or RSS or Atom or some variation thereof, they are effectively feeds of varying data types. They can be easily broken down into the different categories and hence data types - such as link feeds, content feeds, image feeds, event feeds etc. etc. Currently each application API developer implements what they feel is a good format for an API (and often poorly) and it is often very different to what similar applications provide.

With generic feed standards, either through the use of Microformats or the use of defined namespace extensions, it would level the field so that any application or service can participate rather than those that are popular amongst the digerati. Imagine if the earliest news feed readers only supported a set of 41 sites? So you wouldn’t even be able to subscribe to your own blog, let alone the blog of a friend or colleague.

For some reason, outside of content feeds (blog RSS feeds), the other formats have developed in a sporadic and non-standard manner. The standardization of feeds around data types has almost reached a point of becoming an urgent priority, as the mechanisms that previously worked well in defining standard formats broke down with the new types of shared media.

FriendFeed recognize the problems and have commited to supporting the Media RSS standards, but Bret from FriendFeed also said that opening up the aggregator could result in more noise and spam which would drive away users. I believe that the problem may be overstated, and a subscription-based model effectively results in pure, chosen content.

Either way, the next messaging or photo sharing application being built should be able to build an API based on a standard spec for each data type. While there are plenty of new standard format efforts (and new efforts seem to launch every other day), there hasn’t been a best practice decision made by the key influencers (eg. FriendFeed - a bigger stream aggregator) and developers to force the issue.

This could be solved by a large-scale web services proxy, but it would be better if format proxying was only an interim solution.

Trackback URL

Comments

reminds me of my post on the Centralized Me.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/30/friendfeed-the-centralized-me-and-data-portability/

Somehow FriendFeed is now at the very center of the data standards and portability debate.

 

The issue with requiring FriendFeed to adopt and support an open format is that a standardization of this service would completely remove their value add. The development time and infrastructure that FriendFeed have contributed would become worthless when the entire problem could be solved by a simpler Google Reader type app that only needs to parse one format.

 

seems odd to cover this on TCIT.

 

Peter - we will bring it all together over time

 

Peter,

I think this is a great article for techcrunchit. It goes more into the technical nuances that techcrunch does not cover.

Great coverage guys. I just wish the article had a little more depth. You cant kick off a conversation like this and leave it in its current state.

I imagine you read a few articles, papers or books for this story. Linking to a few of those could help spawn a more complete, interesting and educated discussion!

Just my two cents.

Keep up the great work guys.

 

“Great coverage guys. I just wish the article had a little more depth. You cant kick off a conversation like this and leave it in its current state.”

Definitely not, just kicking off an ongoing conversation..

I will put more related links into posts, this came up in a real-world conversation. Thanks for the feedback!

 

Good article! This is going to be a real challenge for the semantic web. We must really structure data in order to make it relevant, but where do you draw the line? We have Atom feeds, which are very widely used, but what about microformats? We have a lot of them! There is hCalendar, XFN, hCard Dublin core, to name some. Besides, they are usually used within a website and not really in external data feeds. How far can you standardize?
What I also believe, is that we need intelligent systems who are able to recognize the structure of a whole document, and not justs parts of it that have some MediaRSS in it. Can we standardize a format that allows you to specify a type of web service? How to distinguish a blog from a status service or bookmarking service?

Interesting discussion I think.

 

Leave a Reply

« Back to text comment