On one of the StackOverflow podcasts, Joel and Jeff discussed what made StackOverflow tick, as they usually did. Jeff made a point: anybody could hack a StackOverflow clone over the weekend. It wouldn’t be as polished but the core use cases are simple enough for this to be a weekend project.

StackOverflow did not take over the Q&A space because it’s great software. I think it actually is pretty good on the software side, but it’s been a runaway success because the guys have managed to create a community, fast. Its launch was a mother of all online launches:

1. the community was in a dire need of a better solution to Q&A
2. the product delivered that solution (that’s the software part)
3. by pre-seeding the site with good content and with persistent evangelism, they got enough user mass for the project to take off

People came and kept coming back because the product rewarded them for doing so. Not unlike Facebook that also rewards you for being there, although in a different way.

Speaking of Facebook, what are the chances that Diaspora will give them a run for their money?

Again, it will not be determined by the quality of their code. Open source alternatives to Twitter, for instance Status.net, did nothing to slow Twitter down. By the time these clones have started popping out, Twitter had enough people bought into it that it didn’t matter if you could download a clone and run it on your server.

Why would you? All your friends were on Twitter already.

With Facebook the game is even harder. My dad is there, and so are million other dads and aunts and non-techies. They won’t run their own Diaspora; their highest technical accomplishment is uploading a photo on their Wall.

So, technically, yes I could run my own quasi-Facebook but would anybody come? Hell I run this blog but for many people Facebook has replaced the internet so if I am to reach them, I have to first link to this post from my FB.

Perhaps the question itself is wrong. As The Onion recently reported, “New Social Networking Site Changing The Way Oh, Christ, Forget It, Let Someone Else Report On This Bullshit“. With a plethora of existing tools already at your disposal, you indeed have all you need to share whatever you want to share with whomever.

The guys behind Diaspora would have to answer our need to share in a very different way, and doing so they’d also have to be excellent community managers, just like the StackOverflow team has been. What I think is that Facebook doesn’t suck badly enough for them to have a clear shot at victory. And without a pressing, dire need, no product to satisfy it can be made.

PS Not feeling so social? Check out the Mine! Project for a very different take on owning and (selectively) sharing your data.

At launch time I used to have 2-3 updates daily in my Buzz. These days, without extending my follow list, I get maybe 25. Sitting there, a real-time component in a decidedly asynchronous Gmail.

Making assumptions based on anecdotal evidence is rarely a good idea. Still, Buzz could be seen as a moderate success – simply thanks to its distribution model.

With a 100+ million users monthly, you can push a lot of mediocre stuff and still get a log of usage.

Long term, though, I don’t see how Google could take it up a league to compete with Twitter. Not unless they take if off Gmail.

It lives inside Gmail so that it gets traction as a result. But an inbox is the last place where I’d want to check for updates. E-mail is broken; it’s either sporadic (for the lucky ones) or overwhelming (the rest of us).

You are scared of inbox because it usually means bad news (or more work – but that’s bad news, too). If you weren’t, there wouldn’t be GDD methods such as Inbox Zero. Whereas real-time messaging is where you go for information and fun, something you’ve unlearned to expect from e-mail.

Taken off Gmail, Buzz could be a technological rival to Twitter but I think that ship has sailed. Unless they can come up with a new model for real-time messaging,  I think Buzz catching up is largely due to its distribution strength and not a sign of an adoption based on new, unique value.

Does Google’s purported entry into the tablet market make it a viable market?

With the iPad being widely perceived as a trying to reverse the decline of the print media – making it essentially a book reader with net access – I side with the pundits who concluded that it’s too big to be useful as a  carry-on device and too constrained to serve as an all-purpose computer.

Whatever deals Apple can strike with publishers, though, Google can get better ones. On Google Books, you can already search over 7 million titles. And Google’s settlement with the Association of American Publishers can open doors to many millions more.

Thus if Google delivers its own tablet/book reader, we are likely to get not a selection of high-brow subscription options but potentially a Book Market with an unlimited catalog and very interesting pricing.

This being an utter speculation of course, I still think Google is far better equipped to create this market. Kindle was the first step but it’s just a book reader, making its $259 price tag seem big. iPad is sexier but Apple doesn’t have as much clout with publishers as Google does. Google just might get this right.

Could it be true? Twitter is working on a paid plan, say some. Almost hard to believe, given the overall consensus that Twitter is never going to make a dime.

You know how it is with consensus, though – as soon as people reach it, someone proves them wrong.

Given the questionable (based on mixed reviews) direction Facebook has taken, should we expect “premium treatment” to be given by Twitter to its paying subscribers? Such as the ability to “tweet” into your stream based on your profile, interests, and activity so far? So far we can only speculate.

One thing is certain: there is already a lot of commercial activity going on Twitter; I get followed by at least 2-3 consultants every day. Twitter has to introduce some kind of system into the game or else I’m afraid its service will become another stinking ad channel where 99% of all content is pure, unadulterated crap.