AOL was exciting – you could read news, send and receive email, play games, IM chat with friends, go into chat rooms based around topics, search for content, listen to music, send eCards, customize the home page to suit your preferences and a variety of other online tasks. In later versions of the AOL desktop, a Web browser was included and other “partners” were added to allow for additional content and, what I will call, applications.

It sure does seem that the more we try to move the Internet forward, the more things seem to copy the old. So with that said, allow me to introduce you to the next version of AOL… AOL 2.0… otherwise known as Facebook.

Read the above paragraph that begins with “AOL was exciting” and replace AOL with Facebook. Seem similar? Seem to be identical?

Facebook has news, buddies, chat/IM, games, video, photos and when you include their developer network you get pretty dang close to what AOL offered. I’m not going to run down every single feature in both services but if you were to create a matrix, the checkmarks would overlap pretty closely. One difference is the aggregated “feed” that Facebook offers which allows you to see what your friends (or marketing contacts) are up to.

Update: Doc Searls said the same thing about Facebook and AOL last month. You should read his post and comments as he discusses trying to keep up with all the content that is pushed his way.

Sure Facebook allows us to connect at higher speeds than an overclocked 28.8 baud modem, but if you look closely, I can see the little yellow running man inside the Facebook logo. I’d argue that if AOL had the connection speeds and coverage that Facebook benefits from today, AOL would have been much larger.

I’ve wondered if Facebook will eventually launch a branded phone similar to Google’s launch of the Nexus One smartphone. And there is a lot of chatter about the potential of Facebook to create a web browser. AOL had a web browser as well.

Facebook likes to say that they are open but I guess by their definition AOL was just as open in the mid-90s. One difference between the companies is in the way they generated revenue. AOL charged a service fee and Facebook is using ads and Facebook also told me tonight that Heinz Ketchup wants me to share my Ketchup stories (I never use Ketchup) and that two of my Facebook friends are “Fans” of Heinz Ketchup.

Let’s look at some recent posts from around the Web – just replace Facebook as you read the posts with AOL and replace any mentions of Obama with Clinton.

• Steve Rubel says that Facebook will centralize the social web. Isn’t that exactly what AOL did in the early-to-mid 90s?
• Facebook is the largest newsreader says Hitwise. Wasn’t AOL the largest online newsreader?
• Facebook is working on an internal email service says Techcrunch editor Michael Arrington. Along with many others, I said this would be coming. And lookie here, AOL had an email service as well. So now people will tell you to email blueriver149@facebook instead of blueriver149@aol.

So is Facebook really just a refurbished version of the old AOL?

After posting the Nexus One story, I wrote “facebook phone” on my story ideas pad. This afternoon blogger Robert Scoble also mentioned the idea of a Facebook phone and that some sort of phone with an Android operating system was a possibility.

Back to the Facebook phone in a minute. Are the days of manufacturer-branded phones numbered? What I mean is that in the near future we will buy branded phones. For example, instead of a Nokia 9100A, will we buy the Bing phone (which is manufactured by Nokia). When I walk around Times Square, there are many billboards for HTC and their phones. Does anyone actually care who manufacturers the phone anymore? Does the average consumer select a phone because it’s a Motorola or a Samsung? Or do they select a phone based on the features, software, apps, etc. that are available and most importantly, the device cost. It’s the same reason why I believe Intel is wasting money buying bloggers for their Insiders campaign.

Alright, let’s get back to the idea of a Facebook phone. Would average consumers purchase a phone that offers very smooth functionality for a social network? My overall answer is yes. While Facebook’s lifespan might be only a few more years, right now they are at the top of the mountain. I’ve seen many ads for phones that have social networking features but it wouldn’t be the same as a phone that is built for Facebook. Like Robert I assume it would be built with an open operating system to allow developers to build on top of the Facebook mobile platform. It will also give Facebook more strength to develop relationships with other large companies who will want to be on the device.

I could imagine both Nokia and Motorola going after a deal to manufacture the Facebook phone. Both manufacturers need a boost – read most mobile blogs and Nokia really needs to get back into the spotlight. Motorola had the spotlight for a couple of weeks with the Droid but unless they drop the price bigtime, I would assume most consumers will go for the Nexus One because of the Google name — especially with both devices on the same Verizon network.

Update: Patricia Handschiegel discusses Facebook and telecom last year.

Another wild idea would be the creation of a SalesForce phone manufactured by Blackberry. From my perspective, we will see more branded phones over the next 18-24 months. The manufacturers will want the added boost from the brand sticker and the brands will be happy to take the cash and the added exposure.

Apparently there are two camps when it comes to the new retweets…one camp likes the consolidated concept and the other camp hates it because they can’t add their 2-cents to the conversation. My guess is that 90% of re-sharing on Twitter is either direct sharing of something Mashable posted or the addition of “lol”.

This past summer I wrote about how Friendfeed could generate massive income and also reach the mainstream. Sadly that never happened because Friendfeed sold out to Facebook. While it looks like Facebook wasn’t reading, this morning I started to think that perhaps Twitter was. What really got me thinking was something I read on Patricia Handschiegel’s blog. While she discusses the way Twitter defined their service in the beginning, she uses the word forum throughout the column.

Could Twitter be moving towards “threaded conversations” similar to what a forum offers? We know that the new retweet functionality will keep everyone’s “like” below the master/initial comment. We also know users want a way to add their own thoughts to the initial comment. Could the threaded conversation mechanism be a way to please both groups? Just like what any forum offers today. And just like the way Friendfeed and Facebook handle the conversation today.

All of this leads me back to the dip in usage. Forums are very sticky because the conversation is centralized and everyone wants “in”. As I’ve written about until my fingers fall off, the conversation is currently so fragmented on Twitter. If Twitter continues to move towards full-Friendfeed, it could mean increased usage.

The panel discussion lasted an hour and I’ve split the video into 20-minute segments – you can view the videos below. Some notes from the panelists:

• Chantelle loads Tweetdeck the moment she hits the office to check Twitter and spends 30 minutes to 1 hour each day going through what her friends sent her
• Kristen discussed using the bit.ly URL shortener as a way to track ROI
• At about the 18 minutes mark in the first video, Chantelle explains how they went to market for their iPhone app using an exclusive with Robert Scoble. She notes that they saw great results by using Robert to get the word out about the app and were even able to get an exciting trending topic on Twitter. They didn’t give the news to the NYT or Newsweek. They met with Robert several times beforehand to build a relationship with Robert. Later on Chantelle noted that depending on the type of story they are trying to push, they will use different sources to work with.

There was a discussion about analytics in the second video although I found the analysis weak. There was no mention about real-value stats – just simple discussion about how many followers or fans a brand has. My guess is that in late 2010 ”followers and fans” will be the hits of 1995.

In the third video there is a discussion about whether to hire a PR firm or if you should look at bringing a person on-board internally.

Most of the updates in today’s 0.9.6.5 release are usability and performance enhancements. They have also rewritten the Flickr search. The new functionality is the addition of Digg and the Digg search along with the ability to submit items from others windows to Digg. They have also added new themed content windows for the MLB, soccer, tennis and the NFL.

The Sobees tools compete in the same space as Tweetdeck and the new Seesmic. Currently the Sobees tools are only available for Windows. The company is working on a cross-platform version which they expect to release this summer.

Interestingly enough, it seemed like it only took one minute before some “people” started to claim some interesting names. Some are calling the names below spam – I guess only time will tell if they picked these vanity URLs for fun or for something more serious.

The list includes (both with the dot and without):

• /free.porn
• /freeporn
• /online.gambling
• /onlinegambling
• /buy.phentermine – Todd says he registered this one as a joke and he agrees with my previous posts regarding domain branding
• /buyphentermine
• /cheapairfares
• /cheap.airfares
• /cheap.hotels
• /cheaphotels
• /cheapcruises
• /cheap.cruises
• /freeipod
• /free.ipod

Have you found anything else that seems odd with the Facebook Vanity URLs? Leave them below in the comments and I will add them to the list.

Owen notes, “You need the tools like facebook and twitter to grow, but the first think out of your mouth should ALWAYS be YOUR brand.” In the video he talks about a variety of people including Michael Jordan and Pdiddy. Owen also makes a good point about missing the opportunity to connect with users/customers who aren’t on Facebook.

I continue to say that you should get your brand’s vanity url for protection but never use it for marketing or promotion. This process makes for a better customer experience.

As I was browsing around, it appears many names are already taken. I present the following list so that you can plan accordingly. The following 25 names are already taken — how they were given is not 100% known. It does appear that our friends at the cupcake factory may have had something to do with it. BFF status also seems to be another way in. Note that this list does not include brand names.

Update: Amit has put together a neat vanity url checker.

• britney – this one belongs to Britney Spears although it redirects to britney-spears – she’s so great she gets multiple vanity urls
• loic
• gary
• mike
• chrismessina
• david
• obama – redirects to barackobama
• mark
• tom
• juliaallison
• william
• james
• paul
• ellen – redirects to the ellen television show
• randi
• pete
• oprah
• jasoncalacanis
• joebiden
• sarahpalin
• leolaporte
• rob
• tom
• pdiddy
• allie

I am sure there are plenty of others already taken as well. Have you found other names that are already taken? Leave them in the comments and I will update the list.

My take is (and has always been) that you should brand yourself and/or your business and never brand another company in an attempt to backdoor your brand. Whether it’s Twitter, MySpace, Yahoo Pages, Geocities, GoDaddy or now Facebook, you need to always do what you can to control the flow. Controlling the flow is very, very easy and here’s how it’s done. And the control I am talking about is from your customer’s perspective.

Buy a domain name and use that as your vehicle.

Does that mean you shouldn’t create a presence on Facebook or MySpace or wherever your customers are? Of course not. And I think it makes sense to grab your brand’s vanity URL if it is available. I agree with Marshall about as he says his domain name is better than any vanity URL will ever be. Chris Messina takes a more technical look at the vanity urls.

This afternoon I watched an interesting video from newly-launched social media consultant Gary Vaynerchuk who seems to think the complete opposite. Gary compares Facebook fan pages to Twitter accounts – he’s right that FB FP have more flexibility but he completely leaves out the concept about owning your brand. (side note, somehow he already ”owns” the facebook.com/gary url meaning you won’t be able to get it) The ultimate flexibility for a fan is to be able to find all of a brand’s social interactions.

What happens to the people who aren’t on Facebook or who don’t care to “friend” a brand. If you push to one property, you lose the opportunity to get with users on all of the other properties. I don’t care if all a brand has on their xyz.com/net/uk/de/eu site are links to all of their social network pages, it’s still a much better interaction than allowing your brand to be controlled by one social network. It does add one extra click but the overall value of that click is higher than the alternative.

I have a unique perspective – not just from being in this industry since the beginning and having worked on all sides – but because I process business cards for a living. It’s amazing to see how many brands don’t even have their own domain for email and are using an ISP’s email server. A large percentage of cards outside the tech space have no URL at all. Every business card must have a URL on it and that URL should point to your company or personal website – not one or more networks.

Think about offline social interactions as a transaction. By pointing to one URL it makes the transaction smooth and easy for the customer. You only have seconds to make the transaction – would you rather push the person to one social network or to a site that offers them to connect with you how they want to?

Here are five of the tips Comcast recommends for parents who are planning to speak with their kids:

• Choose your pictures wisely
• Don’t talk to strangers and use privacy settings
• Keep your personal information personal
• Don’t be a cyberbully
• Go outside and stay active

These tips sure seem like 1995 to me – with so many new networks and ways for teens to interact online, parents really need a full education.

Comcast does recommend that parents learn about the new online networks so they can speak intelligently about them. Perhaps there’s a business opportunity there – people who teach parents about the current state of online networks and keep them up-to-date moving forward. In fact these people could even be there to “moderate” discussions between teens and parents so the teens can’t get over on the parents.

Last night I spoke with a friend and most of the discussion centered around the issues the auto industry is facing today. My friend asked if anyone would have thought five years ago that Chrysler would be in bankruptcy and Daimler would partner with a valley startup. What about GM we wondered – the company has just announced 1,100 dealers will close and tens of thousands will be out of jobs. Oh yea, Chrysler is closing 800 dealerships around the country next month as well.

Am I suggesting that people shouldn’t open car dealerships or create applications on Twitter/Facebook/etc.? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that you do the homework to calculate the risk involved with the business plan. If an application takes little effort, the point of risk calculation is moot. In the TwitterMass example, the app took two weeks to build. If the application was to grow and staff or funding was required, at that point the risk calculation should take place.

The percentage of risk goes down when you can build your application to leverage a technology or platform in addition to your unique offering. In the car dealer business, an example might be offering used cars along with new to minimize risk of losing a new-car dealer license as has happened with GM and Chrysler.

What I found most interesting in the new Flock release is the ability to drag-and-drop items from one network to another. If you want to share a photo from Flickr to your friends on Twitter, you can just drag the photo to the Twitter window and a message will be created with a link to the image. The Twitter integration continues with the ability to save searches into a sidebar for each viewing. It’s almost as if Flock has integrated a mini-desktop app (e.g. tweetdeck) with the full browser functionality.

The new “Flockcast” functionality is also a great addition. Flockcast allows you to broadcast your items to multiple networks. If you share a Flickr photo, you can select to share the item to Facebook as well. Flock says this can also help bloggers because content uploaded to a blog via Flock can be broadcast to multiple networks at once using the Flockcast option.

Flock has also announced that it has integrated Bebo into the browser. Flock self-reports that the browser is used in over 14,000 cities and over 192 countries and territories.

Lastly the new Flock browser has integrated Facebook chat so you can converse with your Facebook friends directly from the browser. The drag-and-drop functionality I noted above is also available with the Facebook chat option.

The updates should be well received by loyal Flock users as they increase the ability to share content along with usability improvements that should increase overall usage.

Chris Nuttall at the Financial Times has commentary from CEO Shawn Hardin.

The release indicates that some new assets will be built for the app but I fear that it will be, at least, partly cookie cutter. The sales PDF shows an asterisk next to the words ”from scratch” but there is no additional note in the document. The Sprout F3 program is a smart idea to help get new customers in the door — naturally the clients will need either more services or long-term maintenance which will be billable. Reporting is included in the overall budget.

Another company in the Facebook app development space is NY-based Buddy Media.

Currently it seems the top three services fighting for the “real time feed” crown are Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook. Dave Winer recently asked what FriendFeed would be if it didn’t pull in Twitter – the answer is simple: a service with very little activity. But for all three services, I find that there is nothing but confusion over the structure of how the three services work together and can imagine that mainstream Internet users face the same issues. I will use Friendfeed in the examples below because it faces the most mainstream issues but there are similar issues with all three services.

In terms of initial content inflow, Facebook and Twitter mainly gather their content via comments (e.g. “my dog just peed on the carpet”, “i had a roasted turkey sandwich for lunch”) while Friendfeed mainly gathers content by pulling in the comments from Twitter and Facebook and then applying a layer of content aggregation on top of that. Of course many populate their Twitter feeds via aggregated links which complicates the issue even further.

Where to reply

Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that I enter my comment on Twitter or Facebook and then it replicates over to Friendfeed. The first issue is where to reply – if I see the comment first on Friendfeed and reply there, the person may never see the reply if they only are actively using Twitter. Then they may think I am an arse for not replying to their comment. If I reply on Twitter, the issue of content confusion begins as I’ve listed below.

Content confusion

On a typical message board or forum, when a person starts a thread, others reply to that thread and all of the content is easy to read within that one thread. With these new services that isn’t the case. Here’s an example – in the image below from Friendfeed you can see comments from me and Ninjamonk.

Our comments were made on Twitter but when they were aggregated into Friendfeed, they weren’t grouped together as they would be on a typical message board. So others who follow either me or Ninjamonk have no idea about the basis for the comments or what followed or preceded the current comment.

Content duplication

Most of the content duplication on Friendfeed seems to arise because users are pulling in multiple services that aggregate the same content. Here’s an example from a Friendfeed user:

In this example, posterous is aggregating to Twitter which is aggregating to Friendfeed. The user’s blog which comes from posterous is also aggregating to Friendfeed. Complicating matters even worse is that the user is aggregating from Facebook which pulls in the same comment yet again. Oh wait, posterous is also sending the image to Flickr which is then aggregated into Friendfeed.

If that wasn’t enough, look at the actual Friendfeed comments. Users have commented on multiple threads which makes the aggregation several layers deeper.

And if we take it a step further, Friendfeed users might comment on the actual blog or posterous and if they are aggregating BackType, we will get even more entries for the same item.

Here’s an example using Disqus investor Fred Wilson’s Friendfeed account. Each time Fred replies to a comment on his blog, it adds yet another unique entry in his Friendfeed stream. The arrows below don’t even include the initial entry for Fred’s post about YouTube. Here’s a partial example of duplicate content which I had to rotate just to fit it all on the screen – the arrows indicate the same piece of content.

Conclusion

The issues raised above seem to impact Friendfeed the most. For the average mainstream Internet user, Twitter is simple enough to understand when used as a simple broadcast medium. Same goes for the new realtime feed in Facebook. I am sure there are solutions to these issues that will simplify these new realtime feed tools. My guess is that services like Disqus and Posterous will need to also be part of the solution – just saying that you can send content to Twitter or Friendfeed isn’t enough to be a good community participating company.

While many Friendfeed users want Friendfeed to be the next service to get celebrity lovin’, the FF team will need to create solutions to the above issues before the service can enter the mainstream pack. (and no Kim Kardashian does not count)

Related: Jolie O’Dell reviews a variety of real-time aggregators.

Over the past week companies including Seesmic have launched desktop applications which allow you to access your Facebook “stream” on your desktop without ever visiting the facebook.com website. Steven Hodson has a good overview of the new Seesmic application.

These new applications are similar to the crop of Twitter applications that allow you to interact with the service “off-site”. Most power users appear to use an off-site service when interacting with Twitter. I can only assume we will see the same pattern with Facebook and off-site interaction. I am not sold that these desktop applications have a chance to actually be solid revenue generators but we will leave that discussion for another day.

My question to Facebook is…where are my ads within these new desktop applications? Are they sent as a package with the feed to the desktop applications? If advertising is the model that Facebook intends to use going forward, I would have thought ads would be included in the desktop stream from day 1. I will admit that I haven’t downloaded the Seesmic desktop application but in all of the reviews I have read, there has been no mention of advertising within the stream.

Assuming ads are not currently part of the desktop applications, when they add them, will we see the same sort of backlash that Facebook has experienced with Beacon and more recently with the terms of service changes? The numbers of Facebook users using the desktop applications is low today and will be for the short-term but as that number grows (especially with power users), Facebook will be forced to push out more ads into the stream – or they risk losing the $1 that I paid them last month since users will never have the chance to engage with my ad unit.