Even though the Google top secret conference had its members sign NDAs, that hasn’t stopped at least three of them from blabbing to Mike “Mr. Access” Arrington about it.  Details of course at TechCrunch, but it sounds like Google is secretly rallying its resources to build a social network that is going to “100%” open.

Again, I’m not going to regurgitate the details, save that from the sounds of it, the really geeky minds behind Google are going to out-geek Facebook on the “open” issue.  Whatever their social network is going to be like, its going to be so open, everyone and their mama is going to be able to push and pull data right from Google applications.  Look for November 5th to be the date that a whole bunch of API’s will be published so that folks can get right into it.

Now, I think that a whole lot more is going to come out of the wash — and there are going to be a whole lot more opinions on this the entire weekend.

But, I think there’s one thing that doesn’t quite add up with Google’s efforts.  While yes, its one thing to be able to drag out Google’s social graph information by being 100% open, and yes, Google is Google — their user base is pretty large — the *only* way that *any* of the “we’re going to out-facebook by being more open” strategy is ever going to *matter* is if people actually use Google’s social network.

That is to say, it runs into the thinking (my thinking, maybe your thinking) that social networks are sort of zero-sum game.  Most people don’t have the time or attention to cultivate identities on more than a few social networks.  And that’s *besides* the fact that there’s the locked-in part where social networks only work if your friends are in the same social network.

In this preliminary-half-baked-information-that-still-needs-to-be-verified-bordering-on-sheer-speculation …

… I mean if its half true, Google’s putting the cart *way* in front of the horse.

There’s a reason why Facebook only introduced opening its social network years after it started.  Hey, you’re right, maybe they didn’t think of it.  But I suspect that the powers that be probably *did*, but realized that it won’t work if you don’t have a robust social network in the first place.

Who *cares*, wants to write applications for, develop products that access a social network if there isn’t a critical mass of users to begin with?

Now, yes, I will remind myself that it *is* still Google.

But on the other hand, yes, they are *still* Google, who have had failures in the past too, who is still really only king of one thing: serving ads.

Some exquisite whining going on at Valleywag yesterday, with an anonymous Facebook developer going on and on about how he and his crew had diverted precious resources to developing a Facebook application — only to get the proverbial rug pulled out from below their feet.

Specifically, there is some first class whinging about how the first set of developers had an ‘unfair advantage’ because of how Facebook had structured the viral component of their applications. One of these components involved being able to blast all your friends with notifications that you had a new application set up. Now, you’re not able to do more than 10 friends a day.

What’s worst is that the developer starts going on “in paranoia extremus” about how this was perhaps planned out, and that they knew that that initial apps were going to explode, and hey — isn’t that Zuckerman’s girlfriend’s roommate’s second cousin twice removed’s uncle helping develop one of those first sweet apps … and doesn’t he, like, secretly own 60% of Facebook through that famous and little known “IOU” that Mark Zuckerman ran up that one time? You know, because he was caught doing that thing on campus when no one was looking? You know! That thing with the pants.

Right. And the FBI is using Facebook to spy on us all.

Look, I sympathize with *wanting* a “level playing field”. I’m all for being equal. But, I also realize that when you’re playing in someone else’s sandbox, you play by their rules. If they want to change them, tough noog’s — you’re S.O.L. and you know what? You should have prepared for that AND any future changes. Like Facebook suddenly switching off their API, or even charging you for it.

Furthermore, do you really think that its a conspiracy that is driving the changes at Facebook? How about looking at it from a user’s point of view. I thought being able to spam all of your friends was annoying both from an installer of of applications, but also from being on the “shared” point of view as well.

And if I’m annoyed by it, *maybe* Facebook was getting some negative feedback on it and wanted to get down on the issue quickly before it became a firestorm of controversy. I can see it now “Facebook 2.0 allows Spam! Please Digg this!” You know. Like the last one. Around privacy? You know — how it reached the mainstream media as well?

Yeah, I bet Zuckerman wants a repeat of those shennanigans.

Lastly, it looks like Liz Ganes at GigaOM has the scoop with some thoughts and interviews with another Facebook developer, and she shares the same sentiments: Facebook developers don’t have the “right” to do anything, least of all spam users.

At the end of the day this is nothing more than a classic case of sour grapes. iLike had a “first mover advantage” in a way that every developer is green with envy / kicking themselves with. The rules have changed? Boo freakin’ hoo. Time to get back to work about making an application that is so useful people will actually *want* to share it with their friends.