I’ve been having a hard time putting my finger on the pulse of what’s been bothering me about Google’s OpenSocial. It seems that it’s easier for folks to articulate the pros. The biggie being that Google is giving Facebook a run for it’s money (perhaps literally). Plus there’s the API overlay. Luckily for me Tom Nixon was able to note Google’s shortcomings via a recent post entitled, “Google opens up social networking, but we’re still not quite there.”

[Excerpt]:

I still think that it’s dangerous for one company, be it Facebook or Google to have so much control over social networking. OpenSocial isn’t really open – Google controls who’s in and who’s out and how the whole thing works. Ultimately Google’s obligations are to their shareholders, not to the Internet population at large, and I doubt that these interests will be aligned much of the time.

The breadth of control Google seems to attain from OpenSocial deviates from what it’s purpose is described as achieving. It’s quite paradoxical really. But there is an unsettling feeling that we’re now faced with Goliath verses Goliath. Where’s David? And perhaps as Tom Nixon notes the answer resides in a “truly open standard for social network interoperability: open source, community owned, and decentralised.“