Stanford conducted a class where the students built Facebook apps to see what worked. The conclusion? The more inane the app, the more users would install it. Touch me, hug me, throw a dodgeball at me, fuck me...

I think the real problem is the the vast majority of the apps are absolute crap.

Let's take a look at the one referenced:

"The most glaring example of this comes straight out of Toronto, the TD Canada Trust “Split the bill” application, which I have to admit seemed like a decent idea to me when I first heard about it"

Split the bill? Really?

You're really going to:

- go to a restaurant

- bring along a laptop

- expect a net connection

- fire up facebook

Just to use this app?

Sturgeon's law is alive and well.

You expect me to do simple math in my head? If I am with friends it is usually more of a fight for the bill than a fight to split the bill.

It is exactly the case of people making apps that are worthless, and expecting the large user base to somehow adopt them.

There IS a huge problem with monetizing various apps though.

A web app to split your bills between friends was selected by YCombinator...

I see you're the inquisitive and intelligent type. So I'll make this explanation to those that aren't:

http://www.netbanker.com/2007/08/td_canada_trust_launches_sp...

"What first crossed my desk this week was SPLIT IT, an application they created that allows roommates who are on Facebook to manage how they split basic bills."

Hmm... This reminds me of something: https://www.billmonk.com/

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/30/minimerger-obopay-aquir...

Hmm... I wonder who might find this app actually useful?

If it's for splitting roommate bills, that sounds like a better app. I've seen friends' roommates that split the cost of a dozen eggs, and even mark the levels of milk.

Generally if you do a startup and you are totally dependant on one customer or supplier you are in trouble. The day facebook changes their strategy you are finished. No matter how great you plugin.