I agree heartily. In the late '90s AOL had millions of users. At the end of many movie trailers there was an AOL keyword instead of a web site URL. I knew many

I agree heartily. In the late '90s AOL had millions of users. At the end of many movie trailers there was an AOL keyword instead of a web site URL. I knew many people who had AOL, but I also knew many people who did not. But it always struck me as absurd that film studios would bet their entire online effort on AOL's walled-garden instead of taking slightly more time to develop a web site as well. (As an aside, unrelated to my point, the "Space Jam" web site is still live, where are all those AOL keyword pages?) There is something similar happening today. No one would go back to the days of AOL, yet people find it perfectly reasonable to rely on Facebook to be the sole online presence for businesses and organizations. This isn't a story about a local coffee shop having a poll to find out which roast is the most popular and doing it using tools that Facebook conveniently provides. This is Intel (based on the linked thread) developing a Facebook "app", with all the energy, money and time that entails in order to hold a contest of sorts. Would it really have been that much more difficult to do it themselves on the open Internet? They could have still used Facebook to promote it even. This is AOL all over again in the worst-possible way. I don't hate Facebook, and I didn't hate AOL. I just don't understand the logic behind companies and organizations that lock themselves into a walled-garden when they have other, better, options.