Ofcourse the best thing is to have the ordinary user able to easily create the program on the fly!

Whether its “people not technology” or “information not technology” remains to be seen but the essential point is that the technology should be transparent. Users say “channel 2″ not “channel 02″, but TV remotes often insist upon “02″.

I don’t know why its “more elegant, organized and professional” but that seems to be a good thing. Often the original innovator executes something poorly and initial growth is based on being the only player. I wonder if some of this is ‘hype’. Facebook originally concentrated on students, I believe, and as students graduate into the real world, they use the software they are familiar with. That is why large vendors give schools free software and banks give students teaser credit cards. If a commentator says the “look and feel” is more elegant, do users start to believe that or does it really have to be more elegant for the growth to take place?
How many social networks will there be? Is there a finite limit? How about a finite limit to coffee vendors in Seattle? Or are ‘social networks’ going to become “mashups” of an underlying identity-server: so that Facebook will merely serve one of your selected personnas?

Facebook is growing faster than other major communities
Facebook’s user interface is easy to use yet it’s far more “elegant”, organized, and professional than Myspace’s interface.
Most importantly, Facebook is providing a robust set of APIs (program interfaces) that allow developers to basically create their own communities on top of Facebook. Community is the new cornerstone of web success for good reason – the internet has always been about people, not about technology . As sites like Facebook tear down technological barriers to adoption we are seeing a second explosion of interest in the online world – this will end with pretty much every person on earth having an online presence of some type (everyone who is free to choose that is).