What will kill Facebook?(swombat.com)
swombat.com
What will kill Facebook?
http://swombat.com/2010/12/15/what-will-kill-facebook
108 comments
I don't recall that Yahoo was ever the top search engine, by the way. In the late 90s, AltaVista was the search engine of choice. Of course, it could be different if you look at hard numbers... Yahoo is ranked #4 on the list mentioned in the article, yet I don't know anybody who (deliberately) uses it for search. But anyway...
Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable."
I think Facebook and Google did exactly that. Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first, targeted at a limited audience; I doubt that right from the start they thought they could be the #1 site on the internet, or even the #1 social site. And AFAICT, Google's initial goal was to provide a better search, not to supplant all other search engines.
In fact, in my opinion, what they have in common is that they both didn't aim for the top at first; rather, they carved out a niche, then worked from there.
Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable."
I think Facebook and Google did exactly that. Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first, targeted at a limited audience; I doubt that right from the start they thought they could be the #1 site on the internet, or even the #1 social site. And AFAICT, Google's initial goal was to provide a better search, not to supplant all other search engines.
In fact, in my opinion, what they have in common is that they both didn't aim for the top at first; rather, they carved out a niche, then worked from there.
> "Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first"
That's a little uncharitable. I joined Facebook fairly early on (when it first launched for college students), and it was the first social networking app of any sort to even hold my attention. Friendster came and went without me ever visiting, so did MySpace... We may not like all that FB is doing, but IMHO it was a lot more than a me-too, even in the beginning.
That's a little uncharitable. I joined Facebook fairly early on (when it first launched for college students), and it was the first social networking app of any sort to even hold my attention. Friendster came and went without me ever visiting, so did MySpace... We may not like all that FB is doing, but IMHO it was a lot more than a me-too, even in the beginning.
Myspace and Facebook were pretty on par circa 2006, I had both with more friends on MySpace by far. MySpace did more of the kinds of things we wanted. I can play music on my profile! And skin it! Like Winamp! Hell, I even got a date through myspace because I met someone new, try that on Facebook! (chuckle away)
Turns out, those "features" weren't actually good things. And when MySpace turned into a spam infested, buggy, always down piece of crap we all turned to Facebook. Honestly I think Facebook blew up in that time because MySpace dropped the ball. I don't remember anything compelling about Facebook at the time when the bulk of my group switched, other than that it didn't break so much.
Turns out, those "features" weren't actually good things. And when MySpace turned into a spam infested, buggy, always down piece of crap we all turned to Facebook. Honestly I think Facebook blew up in that time because MySpace dropped the ball. I don't remember anything compelling about Facebook at the time when the bulk of my group switched, other than that it didn't break so much.
The compelling thing about facebook for me, way back when, was that it lacked the crap that drew you to myspace. I hated myspace. Very GeoCities-esque.
I don't recall that Yahoo was ever the top search engine, by the way.
Yes, but lots of people wanted to be like Yahoo. I think the whole portal idea came from sites wanting to be like them.
Yes, but lots of people wanted to be like Yahoo. I think the whole portal idea came from sites wanting to be like them.
There is another quote though.
We seem to overestimate change in the short run and underestimate it in the long.
We seem to overestimate change in the short run and underestimate it in the long.
A counterpoint...You can quit using Google, MSFT, Yahoo, and etc.
But you can't quit your friends. Social networking is a winner take all. That is why i agree with the author that Facebook would have to shoot itself in the foot first.
But you can't quit your friends. Social networking is a winner take all. That is why i agree with the author that Facebook would have to shoot itself in the foot first.
you can't quit your friends
My friend, for your sake I hope you never have to fully understand what I am about to say...
But there are times when you not only will quit your friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife, but you will have to.
You can quit your family too.
When I was twenty I had no comprehension of this, but having almost reached forty I can reel off examples. Most of which are not mine, fortunately, but some of which are so painful that they hurt even by proxy. Mental illness. Divorce. Physical abuse. Emotional abuse.
Facebook, by the way, with its ridiculously naive conception of identity and privacy, is actually a lousy platform for conducting real-world relationships. It's like trying to compose a story out of the messages written on greeting cards.
My friend, for your sake I hope you never have to fully understand what I am about to say...
But there are times when you not only will quit your friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, husband or wife, but you will have to.
You can quit your family too.
When I was twenty I had no comprehension of this, but having almost reached forty I can reel off examples. Most of which are not mine, fortunately, but some of which are so painful that they hurt even by proxy. Mental illness. Divorce. Physical abuse. Emotional abuse.
Facebook, by the way, with its ridiculously naive conception of identity and privacy, is actually a lousy platform for conducting real-world relationships. It's like trying to compose a story out of the messages written on greeting cards.
I really wanted to downvote you cause I thought your response was an intentional misunderstanding of the comment you were replying to, but then you go and write this gem:
[Conducting relationships on Facebook is] like trying to compose a story out of the messages written on greeting cards.
Insightful. Hilarious. Wow.
[Conducting relationships on Facebook is] like trying to compose a story out of the messages written on greeting cards.
Insightful. Hilarious. Wow.
I thought your response was an intentional misunderstanding
It might have been. Deliberate, experimental misinterpretation is an important essay-writing technique.
Part of the goal of essays is to arrive at new thoughts. To get to someplace new you have to try some wrong turns.
If you can't think of anything novel, write down the obvious. Then try deliberately misinterpreting what you just wrote. It's usually painfully easy to do.
It might have been. Deliberate, experimental misinterpretation is an important essay-writing technique.
Part of the goal of essays is to arrive at new thoughts. To get to someplace new you have to try some wrong turns.
If you can't think of anything novel, write down the obvious. Then try deliberately misinterpreting what you just wrote. It's usually painfully easy to do.
"real-world relationships" - Quite the opposite actually. In my opinion, today real world relationships are now global. Maybe I'm just a small (and growing) portion of people who has friends and family all over the world, in different time-zones and cultures, but I find Facebook the perfect "base" platform for conducting such relationships.
"Conducting relationships" is a multi-faceted concept in my opinion. It involves several layers of communication and Facebook is just one of those, not THE only one.
Let me give you a concrete example of how Facebook has helped me conduct a relationship that I find rather meaningful in my life. I have an American friend living in Switzerland of who I've met some good friends of his. One is a British guy who just recently moved to Dubai from Switzerland for a short term project. Had it not been for Facebook I probably wouldn't have known he moved there and thus provoked me to book a trip to see him several weeks ago. (another form communication - physical presence) He's only there for a few more months and I'm afraid any other form of communication would have been too slow.
Sorry to de-rail your original point but I always find the "Facebook haters" to be rather interesting. And to you're original point about quitting friends. I don't think he/she meant literally that you can't quit all of your friends. The point is that you will always have a social network of people in your life, whether you continually add or delete people. If you don't (and I would feel exceptionally bad for you) then you represent an extremely small percentage of the world's population.
"Conducting relationships" is a multi-faceted concept in my opinion. It involves several layers of communication and Facebook is just one of those, not THE only one.
Let me give you a concrete example of how Facebook has helped me conduct a relationship that I find rather meaningful in my life. I have an American friend living in Switzerland of who I've met some good friends of his. One is a British guy who just recently moved to Dubai from Switzerland for a short term project. Had it not been for Facebook I probably wouldn't have known he moved there and thus provoked me to book a trip to see him several weeks ago. (another form communication - physical presence) He's only there for a few more months and I'm afraid any other form of communication would have been too slow.
Sorry to de-rail your original point but I always find the "Facebook haters" to be rather interesting. And to you're original point about quitting friends. I don't think he/she meant literally that you can't quit all of your friends. The point is that you will always have a social network of people in your life, whether you continually add or delete people. If you don't (and I would feel exceptionally bad for you) then you represent an extremely small percentage of the world's population.
you will always have a social network of people in your life
Sure, but that doesn't mean that Facebook will stay in business, let alone stay fashionable or popular. People have a choice between eating and death, but that doesn't mean that McDonalds will stay in business until humanity is extinct. Though they obviously have quite a headstart in fast food and are doing very well.
The other interesting word in this excerpt is "a". People have "a" social network in Facebook, but they have way, way more than "a" social network in real life. We each have hundreds of overlapping social networks, some with precisely defined membership, temporal, and physical boundaries (I'm not polygamous, so my marriage social network is strictly limited to two) and some with extremely fuzzy boundaries (HN).
Facebook has gotten ahead because, though it offers one particular style of social network, it makes it so very, very easy to use that network -- and it has such a great viral loop and name recognition --- that for the moment it is tempting to pretend that all of your hundreds of real-world social nets can be collapsed into one. But the web is a big place, the future is a long time, and UX innovation can and will be copied.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that Facebook will stay in business, let alone stay fashionable or popular. People have a choice between eating and death, but that doesn't mean that McDonalds will stay in business until humanity is extinct. Though they obviously have quite a headstart in fast food and are doing very well.
The other interesting word in this excerpt is "a". People have "a" social network in Facebook, but they have way, way more than "a" social network in real life. We each have hundreds of overlapping social networks, some with precisely defined membership, temporal, and physical boundaries (I'm not polygamous, so my marriage social network is strictly limited to two) and some with extremely fuzzy boundaries (HN).
Facebook has gotten ahead because, though it offers one particular style of social network, it makes it so very, very easy to use that network -- and it has such a great viral loop and name recognition --- that for the moment it is tempting to pretend that all of your hundreds of real-world social nets can be collapsed into one. But the web is a big place, the future is a long time, and UX innovation can and will be copied.
> Sure, but that doesn't mean that Facebook will stay in business, let alone stay fashionable or popular.
Absolutely agreed. I was raising questions about the point for the absolute existence of a social network. I think what the originator of this discussion was saying is that any social network is a necessity to living (much like food and shelter). In other words there will always be a market for such a platform (as opposed to say something like selling iPods)
Also I'm interested in understanding why you think Facebook's concept of identity and privacy is naive? My identity is composed of the things I like and my privacy consists of the things that I like that I wish to share with people. Facebook gives me every opportunity to do exactly both in an extremely controlled manner.
Absolutely agreed. I was raising questions about the point for the absolute existence of a social network. I think what the originator of this discussion was saying is that any social network is a necessity to living (much like food and shelter). In other words there will always be a market for such a platform (as opposed to say something like selling iPods)
Also I'm interested in understanding why you think Facebook's concept of identity and privacy is naive? My identity is composed of the things I like and my privacy consists of the things that I like that I wish to share with people. Facebook gives me every opportunity to do exactly both in an extremely controlled manner.
Yes, this is how it will eventually happen for Facebook if they don't reinvent themselves (and they never do).
It doesn't even have to be that dramatic. People change and drift apart. The older you get, the more extreme the examples become. I often forget the names of people I once considered friends for life.
The more they pile up, the more Facebook changes from keeping in touch to unwilling voyeurism. The FB killer will be something that deftly handles change.
It doesn't even have to be that dramatic. People change and drift apart. The older you get, the more extreme the examples become. I often forget the names of people I once considered friends for life.
The more they pile up, the more Facebook changes from keeping in touch to unwilling voyeurism. The FB killer will be something that deftly handles change.
Back in the 90s, all my friends and I used ICQ. Then something weird happened. I can't explain why, but everyone started switching to MSN Messenger (this was in Canada, I understand that AIM was more popular in the US). It probably had to do with the nicer UI, but I can't be sure. Basically, ICQ became irrelevant, except in Russia. It's a perfect example of how all your friends can move somewhere else. The other great example: Friendster.
Good point. Networks are good, but they aren't a total lock-in.
However, Facebook has some things going for it that ICQ didn't. for example:
Grandmothers - Facebook started with the early adopters just like everyone else. But they slowly moved (and are still moving) down the curve, past the 'what's a browser' middle and down to the users for whom email is a big challenge. People who basically don't use computers except for occasional tasks that someone else has shown them how to do and set everything up. These people don't switch easily.
However, Facebook has some things going for it that ICQ didn't. for example:
Grandmothers - Facebook started with the early adopters just like everyone else. But they slowly moved (and are still moving) down the curve, past the 'what's a browser' middle and down to the users for whom email is a big challenge. People who basically don't use computers except for occasional tasks that someone else has shown them how to do and set everything up. These people don't switch easily.
Today's grandmothers won't be around for long. The core generation that joined Facebook because it was cool will become boring old people themselves, and that's why Facebook won't survive.
My fiancée and I are in our late 20s. We were in college when Facebook came out and arrived at the party early. We built our social networks to share the fruits of our newfound "adult" freedoms- namely pictures of inappropriate Halloween costumes and drinking games.
Now, Facebook is different. My mom is on it. My mother-in-law-to-be is on it. But because my fiancée and I are on it, our children likely won't be. It won't be a fun place to share things you don't want mom to know. Mom will be checking in and leaving embarrassing messages on your wall. I think my kids will probably find somewhere else to hang out. It will probably have a name I can't seem to remember, and I will likely embarrass them in front of their friends by pronouncing it wrong or misunderstanding its key features.
Social networks are binding, but they're highly generational. Unless Facebook can figure out how to get my future kids to think its cool, it's toast in 20 years or less.
--Edited for grammar--
My fiancée and I are in our late 20s. We were in college when Facebook came out and arrived at the party early. We built our social networks to share the fruits of our newfound "adult" freedoms- namely pictures of inappropriate Halloween costumes and drinking games.
Now, Facebook is different. My mom is on it. My mother-in-law-to-be is on it. But because my fiancée and I are on it, our children likely won't be. It won't be a fun place to share things you don't want mom to know. Mom will be checking in and leaving embarrassing messages on your wall. I think my kids will probably find somewhere else to hang out. It will probably have a name I can't seem to remember, and I will likely embarrass them in front of their friends by pronouncing it wrong or misunderstanding its key features.
Social networks are binding, but they're highly generational. Unless Facebook can figure out how to get my future kids to think its cool, it's toast in 20 years or less.
--Edited for grammar--
Nailed it.
Already I see awkward parent/child relationships. To the parent, they love feeling 'in touch'. To the child, it's just embarassing that their parents are hanging around on Facebook. As they move into the embarrassing photos/stories, they're either going to find a new platform or create a separate identity, or something, to conduct themselves online in private.
SMS was the killer app for teens because they could exchange messages with friends (a) cheaply and (b) without being overheard.
Already I see awkward parent/child relationships. To the parent, they love feeling 'in touch'. To the child, it's just embarassing that their parents are hanging around on Facebook. As they move into the embarrassing photos/stories, they're either going to find a new platform or create a separate identity, or something, to conduct themselves online in private.
SMS was the killer app for teens because they could exchange messages with friends (a) cheaply and (b) without being overheard.
Early adopters have already started to abandon Facebook. However, they come back because there is no better option.
What's going to kill Facebook is something better. Less spam, better privacy, etc, but it still needs to be at least as good as Facebook to get anywhere. And that’s going to take a seriously long runway a great development team and awesome management. Look for a profitable nitch like LinkedIn that just keeps growing.
What's going to kill Facebook is something better. Less spam, better privacy, etc, but it still needs to be at least as good as Facebook to get anywhere. And that’s going to take a seriously long runway a great development team and awesome management. Look for a profitable nitch like LinkedIn that just keeps growing.
Even social sites with lock-in can still lose market share because you can socialize on multiple platforms. I still have a yahoo email address cos my grandmother likes to send me email forwards. But when I make new connections, or reconnect with old ones, I don't do it on yahoo.
Grandmothers won't save Facebook. They'll allow Facebook to linger on like a maladapted dinosaur or the old VAX your IT department uses as shelf space. But in a post-Facebook world, just because we all keep Facebook accounts to maintain ossified relationships doesn't mean Zuck still has social relevance.
Grandmothers won't save Facebook. They'll allow Facebook to linger on like a maladapted dinosaur or the old VAX your IT department uses as shelf space. But in a post-Facebook world, just because we all keep Facebook accounts to maintain ossified relationships doesn't mean Zuck still has social relevance.
Yes, but I don't use facebook because my Grandma's on it (well, actually she isn't, but if she was it wouldn't matter).
If I found a new social network that I thought offered something new I would start using that in parallel to facebook. Then I'd use the new one more as more people moved over, until eventually facebook just became a way of emailing my grandma.
A lot of these facebook killer conversations seem to be based on the idea that I'm only going to use one social network. I'd argue that's not true at all.
If I found a new social network that I thought offered something new I would start using that in parallel to facebook. Then I'd use the new one more as more people moved over, until eventually facebook just became a way of emailing my grandma.
A lot of these facebook killer conversations seem to be based on the idea that I'm only going to use one social network. I'd argue that's not true at all.
in Poland ICQ was smashed by GaduGadu, a local IM raised from an SMS sending app, additionally it was the .com bubble times and when the web was raising crazy around here. Yet I remember that fellow nerds and I used ICQ for some time until it was full of spam, so I assume spam was what 'killed' it in most countries.
Australia was the same. ICQ --> MSN
MSN had one killer feature -- it saved your contact list on the server. This meant that any time I had a new computer (or re-installed my OS) My MSN list was still there -- ICQ I needed to add everyone again.
AIM and ICQ are not "social networks". I can't ever imagine my parents using AIM or ICQ ever. But they are on facebook. Good luck getting them switched over to another service.
Facebook has 500+ mil users. Most of them, non techies.
Friendster actually proves my point...they shot themselves in the foot. Facebook exists because of mismanagement by Friendster.
Facebook has 500+ mil users. Most of them, non techies.
Friendster actually proves my point...they shot themselves in the foot. Facebook exists because of mismanagement by Friendster.
Isn't it conceivable that the next social network will start as a place for the younguns to get away from their parents? If you were 15, would you rather be at a party with all your friends and everyone's parents and grandparents and aunts and weird cousins or at a party with just your friends?
If that's the case, then the feature set would be focused toward a younger crowd, rather than the privacy features and such that people discussing a "Facebook killer" usually mention. I wonder if it could possibly be a step backwards in some areas.
4chan anyone?
Yes - 4Chan is the new FB. It's deliberately unappealing, it's the new generation.
I liken Mys[ace/bebo/friendster/facebook/linked-in/4Chan/whatever to bars and nightclubs. They can get popular for a while, even wildly popular, but eventually they go out of fashion. Those 'pubs' with a slower cadence like Linked-in will take longer to die, but will also never reach the dizzy heights of the biggest 'clubs' like mySpace and Facebook.
And no one would dump all the contacts and email they have in their Hotmail.
In technology, the word never is a fool's word.
In technology, the word never is a fool's word.
Why you mean by "quit your friends"? About 50% of my friends are not on the Facebook, and I communicate with them using phone, email, or directly meet them. The same with the folks who are on FB...I usually reach them by other means, anyway.
Really?
For me it's down to <10% Friends. (Maybe 50% of family when you count aunties/uncles)
And aside from 3 people I don't remember the last time I got an email from a friend. FB Messaging / wall posts own that space completely.
Obviously sms still has it's place (ie- want a response in the next 10 minutes rather than the next 24 hours) and nothing can replace in-person communication -- but FB is doing a damn good job of replacing my electronic communication.
Obviously sms still has it's place (ie- want a response in the next 10 minutes rather than the next 24 hours) and nothing can replace in-person communication -- but FB is doing a damn good job of replacing my electronic communication.
There was a point in time where we shared pictures on Flickr. We don't do that often anymore, and even though we're on facebook, we don't share pictures there that often anyway.
You can quit facebook if there was a better way to connect to your friends.
You can quit facebook if there was a better way to connect to your friends.
[deleted]
You can quit facebook without quitting your friends.
> Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable."
Google beat Yahoo at their own game.
Facebook beat MySpace at thier own game. It's a different game than Google were playing, but Facebook made their game more important than Google's.
Google beat Yahoo at their own game.
Facebook beat MySpace at thier own game. It's a different game than Google were playing, but Facebook made their game more important than Google's.
What justification do you have that facebook is "more important" than google?
Google has something like 30x facebook's revenue, and is still growing at a tremendous rate. Facebook has been growing faster but it'd be silly to imagine that their several hundred percent growth rate could continue forever. Worse yet, facebook's per user revenue is so poor that if we were to assume that their user base expanded to include every computer owner in the world they would still not match google's current revenue.
Facebook gets a lot of exuberant press these days but make no mistake, they still have many huge challenges ahead of them. Even if facebook were to double its revenues every year it would still take 4-5 years to catch up to google. A lot can happen in that time.
Google has something like 30x facebook's revenue, and is still growing at a tremendous rate. Facebook has been growing faster but it'd be silly to imagine that their several hundred percent growth rate could continue forever. Worse yet, facebook's per user revenue is so poor that if we were to assume that their user base expanded to include every computer owner in the world they would still not match google's current revenue.
Facebook gets a lot of exuberant press these days but make no mistake, they still have many huge challenges ahead of them. Even if facebook were to double its revenues every year it would still take 4-5 years to catch up to google. A lot can happen in that time.
That's right! The next Facebook will be coming out written by my fingers! In PHP, no less! That's what my client says anyway. I'm being paid in free run eggs.
While I agree with the redefinition of 'kill' I couldn't disagree more about Facebook not having any flaws that might kill it. Facebook has two that I can see.
The first is that it is built from the ground up around a flat social network and that maps really poorly onto real social networks. Sure they can add things like groups to try and address this but it's baked into the DNA of the site and the way people think about the site. The blog post that accompanied the recent profile refresh really brought home how they do not understand this. Listing work projects and who you worked on them with on a friend-oriented service? Promoting parts of your life so more 'friends' can learn about them? Who on earth wants to do this stuff?
The second, which is part of the reason for the first (college social networks are relatively speaking flat) is that Facebook was built and initially populated by the Ivy League. It was the classy, exclusive social network. Now it's everybody's, there's like buttons on every site, every brand from downmarket crap to luxury. Every market has price differentiation, social networks will be no different, there is a huge opportunity for a more exclusive, more upmarket network and when those users bail on Facebook there's a real chance it'll cause a cascade.
The first is that it is built from the ground up around a flat social network and that maps really poorly onto real social networks. Sure they can add things like groups to try and address this but it's baked into the DNA of the site and the way people think about the site. The blog post that accompanied the recent profile refresh really brought home how they do not understand this. Listing work projects and who you worked on them with on a friend-oriented service? Promoting parts of your life so more 'friends' can learn about them? Who on earth wants to do this stuff?
The second, which is part of the reason for the first (college social networks are relatively speaking flat) is that Facebook was built and initially populated by the Ivy League. It was the classy, exclusive social network. Now it's everybody's, there's like buttons on every site, every brand from downmarket crap to luxury. Every market has price differentiation, social networks will be no different, there is a huge opportunity for a more exclusive, more upmarket network and when those users bail on Facebook there's a real chance it'll cause a cascade.
...it is built from the ground up around a flat social network and that maps really poorly onto real social networks.
This flaw is obvious enough that it inspired an SNL parody ("Damn It, My Mom Is On Facebook Filter"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Bd9-xOQjU
It's pretty funny, and its appeal isn't limited to geeks.
This flaw is obvious enough that it inspired an SNL parody ("Damn It, My Mom Is On Facebook Filter"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Bd9-xOQjU
It's pretty funny, and its appeal isn't limited to geeks.
What will be truly ironic is when Facebook falls out of fashion in the youth market. Yes, the very thing that it was designed for and that made it great.
It will be astonishing if that does not happen, at least in America. If there is one consistent factor in American culture, it is that your kids will find something to do that is superficially different from what you did. They don't dance to their grandmother's music - except as retro kitsch - and they won't use her social network either.
Alterna-Facebook may be almost exactly like Facebook, it might be compatible with Facebook and it might even be built and run by Zuckerberg, but it won't look like Facebook and it won't be branded as Facebook.
Facebook itself will not die, of course. But it might just settle into its niche. Consider a related - but more primitive - example of a niche genre: high school yearbooks. They are a steady, stable, hundred-year-old tradition but they never grew to threaten, say, newsmagazines, or scientific journals. They are what they are. They are just one genre. Everyone has one, and for a couple years in everyone's life it might even seem important.
It will be astonishing if that does not happen, at least in America. If there is one consistent factor in American culture, it is that your kids will find something to do that is superficially different from what you did. They don't dance to their grandmother's music - except as retro kitsch - and they won't use her social network either.
Alterna-Facebook may be almost exactly like Facebook, it might be compatible with Facebook and it might even be built and run by Zuckerberg, but it won't look like Facebook and it won't be branded as Facebook.
Facebook itself will not die, of course. But it might just settle into its niche. Consider a related - but more primitive - example of a niche genre: high school yearbooks. They are a steady, stable, hundred-year-old tradition but they never grew to threaten, say, newsmagazines, or scientific journals. They are what they are. They are just one genre. Everyone has one, and for a couple years in everyone's life it might even seem important.
MySpace.
I read somewhere that a few years ago, their staff were walking around wearing t-shirts emblazoned with "Your Mom has a Facebook Page". The article was about how they were trying to position themselves as a more youthful, 'alternative' social network.
Don't think it really worked, though there's certainly still a lot of bands on there. Besides, if some upstart did recast themselves as young and hip and Facebook as old and fuddy-duddy, Facebook could reframe themselves as classic and sophisticated (similar to the changing brands of Pepsi and Coca-Cola).
I read somewhere that a few years ago, their staff were walking around wearing t-shirts emblazoned with "Your Mom has a Facebook Page". The article was about how they were trying to position themselves as a more youthful, 'alternative' social network.
Don't think it really worked, though there's certainly still a lot of bands on there. Besides, if some upstart did recast themselves as young and hip and Facebook as old and fuddy-duddy, Facebook could reframe themselves as classic and sophisticated (similar to the changing brands of Pepsi and Coca-Cola).
I could see that happening. There's a decent argument to be made that network effects would make a duopoly the efficient outcome for major social networks like FB and Myspace.
As people get better at, and better tools for, segmenting their lives on FB, I don't see why FB couldn't persist.
As people get better at, and better tools for, segmenting their lives on FB, I don't see why FB couldn't persist.
> It was the classy, exclusive social network
Exclusive maybe, I'd stop short of referring to Ivy League students as classy ;-)
Exclusive maybe, I'd stop short of referring to Ivy League students as classy ;-)
How about a social network for very rich people? Charge something like $1,000,000 to keep the riff-raff out.
This doesn't really make much sense to me...very rich people have their own real-world private social networks already, and unless they're ridiculously wealthy, they probably have lots of not-as-wealthy friends, family members, and acquaintances that they want to keep in touch with too, so now they have to maintain two networks. Seems like they'd just use FB with extra privacy settings or not use anything at all.
Also, I like how both of the exclusive networks for the rich mentioned in sibling comments apparently couldn't afford a .com domain name :)
Also, I like how both of the exclusive networks for the rich mentioned in sibling comments apparently couldn't afford a .com domain name :)
or small world which has been around for longer than Facebook:
http://www.asmallworld.net
I still haven't received an invite:)
http://www.asmallworld.net
I still haven't received an invite:)
>How about a social network for very rich people?
http://www.affluence.org/
http://www.affluence.org/
Out of curiosity I spent a bit looking around this site and reading about it. What I found were half-truths, inconsistencies (at least one), broken links, somebody calls it a scam, somebody else calls it legit... very weird, I wouldn't buy into it.
No idea. It's not the only one if I remember correctly. It could be a brilliant social engineering experiment: you make a bunch of wealthy doctors and lawyers believe they are chatting with paris hilton and at the same time you collect info out of juicy targets for scams and thefts.
The rich have had such networks for a long time. They are currently called country clubs.
I have this theory that anything build by a network effect, can be undone by a network effect. I agree that no company ever gets flat out killed - well, not if they have a billion in cash and not in just a year or two. However, I don't think comparing Facebook to Google in the unkillable sense is correct. Google is far more unkillable than Facebook, because:
A) You need to accumulate lots of data to even have a chance to beat Google. No algorithm you come up with will be competitive until you have a mound of data similar to theirs, and accumulating that data takes years.
B) My friends leaving Google has little impact on me. So, with a Facebook, you can pick off a city or social group, and snowball that. That's exactly what Facebook did to MySpace, and there's no analog in beating Google.
To beat Google, you need time, money, and it's a moving target. That's why the only serious contender is Bing. To beat Facebook, you need a better design, indomitable passion, and clever marketing. Really clever marketing.
What is keeping you on Facebook is just the fact that they have your list of friends and family. I'm not saying Facebook is easy to beat, and I believe over time, they have accumulated some of the defenses that Google has. However, a company built on a network effect can die by a network effect. Easy come, easy go.
A) You need to accumulate lots of data to even have a chance to beat Google. No algorithm you come up with will be competitive until you have a mound of data similar to theirs, and accumulating that data takes years.
B) My friends leaving Google has little impact on me. So, with a Facebook, you can pick off a city or social group, and snowball that. That's exactly what Facebook did to MySpace, and there's no analog in beating Google.
To beat Google, you need time, money, and it's a moving target. That's why the only serious contender is Bing. To beat Facebook, you need a better design, indomitable passion, and clever marketing. Really clever marketing.
What is keeping you on Facebook is just the fact that they have your list of friends and family. I'm not saying Facebook is easy to beat, and I believe over time, they have accumulated some of the defenses that Google has. However, a company built on a network effect can die by a network effect. Easy come, easy go.
Your theory is sound, but I think for the wrong reasons. The only way to kill a network effect product is with network effect. You cannot bribe 30M users. You cannot offer a marginally better product (e.g.: better privacy controls). You have to offer a different product that will not directly compete with Facebook, but will take eyeballs away from them. Think Farmville. Farmville is genious: it uses Facebook itself to get into people's brains and then they spend hours on it. Imagine if Farmville became just slightly more fun to play than to stalk your ex and her new boyfriend, etc.
If you must create a social network to compete with Facebook, make it be a part of Facebook at first too. Integrate it. Make sure that it takes me zero effort to jump between Facebook and your Smashbook. Then start improving your Smashbook in ways that Facebook cannot or will not. Add those better privacy controls. Implement a better social model. Remove annoying ads. Basically, do what Gmail did to Hotmail: it uses the same system and I am not cut off from my friends if I switch, but I get to use better tools. But there is no way in hell that you can start a social network about collecting stamps and gradually outgrow Facebook. You may make a decent chunk of change on this, so it may be worthwhile, but it will not kill Facebook.
If you must create a social network to compete with Facebook, make it be a part of Facebook at first too. Integrate it. Make sure that it takes me zero effort to jump between Facebook and your Smashbook. Then start improving your Smashbook in ways that Facebook cannot or will not. Add those better privacy controls. Implement a better social model. Remove annoying ads. Basically, do what Gmail did to Hotmail: it uses the same system and I am not cut off from my friends if I switch, but I get to use better tools. But there is no way in hell that you can start a social network about collecting stamps and gradually outgrow Facebook. You may make a decent chunk of change on this, so it may be worthwhile, but it will not kill Facebook.
You are right that it's a lot of work to beat Google in its own game, but what I realized recently is that Google as a text search service is not that essential for me as it used to be like 5 years ago.
For example, now when I am searching for news, like I want to know what's new with wikileaks, I start my search on twitter, where I get more fresh and more diverse info. Or if I want to know about something I know very little about, I start on Wikipedia, etc.
So while Google can be unkillable, other companies can make it less indispensable by providing completely new ways of searching for info.
For example, now when I am searching for news, like I want to know what's new with wikileaks, I start my search on twitter, where I get more fresh and more diverse info. Or if I want to know about something I know very little about, I start on Wikipedia, etc.
So while Google can be unkillable, other companies can make it less indispensable by providing completely new ways of searching for info.
Interesting. What if somebody wanted to immensely improve one niche of search? Maybe become THE tool to use to find a very narrow and specific kind of information.
I think there is a vector there that could be used against google.
I think there is a vector there that could be used against google.
Zuckerberg already said what will kill Facebook, but he didn't phrase it as such:
verticals.
There are several social aspects of our lives that are very poorly served by Facebook and that's where verticals will come in.
Verticals won't necessarily kill Facebook, but they have the potential to chip away at the centralization of data inside of the Facebook social graph itself.
Under this scenario Facebook would still act as an aggregator, but then again the barrier to entry for competing aggregators of social network verticals would fall substantially and allow innovation and specialization.
I know of at least one stealth startup working on such a vertical, but I can't mention who just quite yet. From the ideas I've heard, the potential is definitely there in the idea to corner one aspect of a users life that Facebook couldn't possibly match due to the high level of abstraction FB needs to maintain as a generic social networking site.
I think verticals could also erode Google as well. Quora is going after one aspect of knowledge. Wikipedia as well.
If I were to create a search engine today, I'd go after one vertical. For example, a search engine focused entirely on helping you find code would be immensely valuable. Sites like Github and Freshmeat have search, but the search isn't specialized to add any value over what Google already offers. In fact, in many cases sites with specialized knowledge about one vertical choose to use Google's search for its own site instead of building a new search from scratch that better serves the need of that vertical.
Examples of verticals where I see value in creating a specialized social network or search engine:
-- Nightlife
-- Code/Programming
-- Educational resources.
verticals.
There are several social aspects of our lives that are very poorly served by Facebook and that's where verticals will come in.
Verticals won't necessarily kill Facebook, but they have the potential to chip away at the centralization of data inside of the Facebook social graph itself.
Under this scenario Facebook would still act as an aggregator, but then again the barrier to entry for competing aggregators of social network verticals would fall substantially and allow innovation and specialization.
I know of at least one stealth startup working on such a vertical, but I can't mention who just quite yet. From the ideas I've heard, the potential is definitely there in the idea to corner one aspect of a users life that Facebook couldn't possibly match due to the high level of abstraction FB needs to maintain as a generic social networking site.
I think verticals could also erode Google as well. Quora is going after one aspect of knowledge. Wikipedia as well.
If I were to create a search engine today, I'd go after one vertical. For example, a search engine focused entirely on helping you find code would be immensely valuable. Sites like Github and Freshmeat have search, but the search isn't specialized to add any value over what Google already offers. In fact, in many cases sites with specialized knowledge about one vertical choose to use Google's search for its own site instead of building a new search from scratch that better serves the need of that vertical.
Examples of verticals where I see value in creating a specialized social network or search engine:
-- Nightlife
-- Code/Programming
-- Educational resources.
Problem with verticals is that people lose interest fast.
Nightlife? Sure, but once you have a favorite club or 2 where you hang out with friends regularly, you don't need a website to tell where to go anymore.
Educational resources? You mean like lots of scanned books that you can search?
What will make Google irrelevant is a better search engine: just the other day I remembered a piece of article I first read a couple of years ago. It's somewhere out there but I can't find it because of all the junk and all I remember are a couple of words and a number.
In 2002 when I first used Google's search, I had been using Altavista previously. The results from Google were so good compared to Altavista that it wasn't even funny. If the same would happen today, Google would be in big trouble.
Also Facebook is already irrelevant to me. I log in from time to time, responding to a friendship request, but these days I only view it as a tool with which I could spam my acquaintances in case I need it :)
Nightlife? Sure, but once you have a favorite club or 2 where you hang out with friends regularly, you don't need a website to tell where to go anymore.
Educational resources? You mean like lots of scanned books that you can search?
What will make Google irrelevant is a better search engine: just the other day I remembered a piece of article I first read a couple of years ago. It's somewhere out there but I can't find it because of all the junk and all I remember are a couple of words and a number.
In 2002 when I first used Google's search, I had been using Altavista previously. The results from Google were so good compared to Altavista that it wasn't even funny. If the same would happen today, Google would be in big trouble.
Also Facebook is already irrelevant to me. I log in from time to time, responding to a friendship request, but these days I only view it as a tool with which I could spam my acquaintances in case I need it :)
> Problem with verticals is that people lose interest fast.
That's a pretty funny comment here on HN -- a vertical
That's a pretty funny comment here on HN -- a vertical
To drive the point further. This is a vertical that has a LOT of unexplored potential.
The truth is that people spend most of their time in verticals.
Statistics focus on the aggregate amount of time the average American spends on Facebook, 7 hours per month.
But the truth is that what is most interesting is the 20-40 hours a month someone spends on the verticals that matter most to them.
For us it's nerd/tech stuff, so we hang out here for hours on end. The number of hours I spend on here blows the amount of time I spend on Facebook away. The same goes for Quora.
For companies that make money from advertising, the highest click-through-rates come from the most engaged audiences and highly targeted advertising.
The truth is that no one has perfected many verticals. StackOverflow is one of the the best examples of startups that have done an excellent job in a vertical, but there is still much more potential there too.
Regarding search verticals, the search algorithms for code are going to look really really different when compared to those for natural language that Google is after.
Imagine a code search engine where I can save preferences for the languages I want to search in. This engine then indexes lots of different places like Github, Gitorious, Freshmeat, SourceForge, etc.
If you are part of the community that cares about code, you all of a sudden stop going to Google as the default for all code searches. Of course, Google could then become a portal to your search, but at that point the the barriers to entry for other companies to aggregate vertical search engines becomes much lower and Google's dominance is no longer guaranteed.
The truth is that people spend most of their time in verticals.
Statistics focus on the aggregate amount of time the average American spends on Facebook, 7 hours per month.
But the truth is that what is most interesting is the 20-40 hours a month someone spends on the verticals that matter most to them.
For us it's nerd/tech stuff, so we hang out here for hours on end. The number of hours I spend on here blows the amount of time I spend on Facebook away. The same goes for Quora.
For companies that make money from advertising, the highest click-through-rates come from the most engaged audiences and highly targeted advertising.
The truth is that no one has perfected many verticals. StackOverflow is one of the the best examples of startups that have done an excellent job in a vertical, but there is still much more potential there too.
Regarding search verticals, the search algorithms for code are going to look really really different when compared to those for natural language that Google is after.
Imagine a code search engine where I can save preferences for the languages I want to search in. This engine then indexes lots of different places like Github, Gitorious, Freshmeat, SourceForge, etc.
If you are part of the community that cares about code, you all of a sudden stop going to Google as the default for all code searches. Of course, Google could then become a portal to your search, but at that point the the barriers to entry for other companies to aggregate vertical search engines becomes much lower and Google's dominance is no longer guaranteed.
[deleted]
I used to hate Facebook, but over the years I've come to enjoy it. But now I am starting to hate it again. The reasons have nothing to do with Facebook's privacy issues or Facebook's business decisions. No, the issues I am having are that Facebook has enabled friends, family members and acquaintances to inject their dumb ideas, religious quotes, backwards thinking, ridiculous opinions, FOX news talking points and political beliefs into my everyday life. What I used to be able to ignore is now front-and-center on my Facebook Wall because I have friends and family members who I love dearly but who aren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.
So, what will "kill" Facebook? It's simple. What will kill Facebook will be its own stupid users.
“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!” - George Carlin
So, what will "kill" Facebook? It's simple. What will kill Facebook will be its own stupid users.
“Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!” - George Carlin
Yep, the AOLification of facebook has gotten so extreme that I think many people are now seeing that they don't WANT to be connected to their acquaintances in such a fashion.
I don't even necessarily agree, but Carlin's delivery of that line is priceless, I can hear it my head. RIP George.
It's funny that I was already composing my "this *killer business is nonsense, where are the historical examples of one tech company really annihilating a market leader, etc., etc." rant comment in my head, when I clicked to read the article. :)
Ultimately? A combination of factors will kill* facebook. (* where "kill" is defined as dethroning them from their spot as seemingly a social media monopoly)
Firstly, facebook's technology advantage will evaporate, especially as hardware improves. The cost of serving facebook's traffic and of managing the infrastructure to serve that traffic will come down over time until ultimately it's as abundant and cheap as a linux VPS is today. Somewhere along that trend you'll see an explosion in very capable facebook competitors. People as savvy as Apple and as technologically competent as google. Ultimately I think the result will be fragmentation and loosely federated disjoint services (much like email is today).
Secondly, facebook will one day become un-cool. When your parents' generation and your grand parents' generation move into your social media platform en masse that can change its nature. Eventually facebook's allure will fade, and perhaps some new thing will draw the attention of the younger generation as it always has.
Thirdly, facebook has a pretty sloppy business plan. Their core idea has always been "grow big first, figure out how to monetize that second". The downside of this is that if their growth stalls or they shrink then they are left high and dry with no revenue and no wealth to try to turn things around (see digg, myspace, etc.) More sophisticated competitors with more robust business plans from the get go have a chance to take facebook to the cleaners. I competing social media platform able to be far more efficient in terms of revenue generation would be a serious threat to facebook.
Firstly, facebook's technology advantage will evaporate, especially as hardware improves. The cost of serving facebook's traffic and of managing the infrastructure to serve that traffic will come down over time until ultimately it's as abundant and cheap as a linux VPS is today. Somewhere along that trend you'll see an explosion in very capable facebook competitors. People as savvy as Apple and as technologically competent as google. Ultimately I think the result will be fragmentation and loosely federated disjoint services (much like email is today).
Secondly, facebook will one day become un-cool. When your parents' generation and your grand parents' generation move into your social media platform en masse that can change its nature. Eventually facebook's allure will fade, and perhaps some new thing will draw the attention of the younger generation as it always has.
Thirdly, facebook has a pretty sloppy business plan. Their core idea has always been "grow big first, figure out how to monetize that second". The downside of this is that if their growth stalls or they shrink then they are left high and dry with no revenue and no wealth to try to turn things around (see digg, myspace, etc.) More sophisticated competitors with more robust business plans from the get go have a chance to take facebook to the cleaners. I competing social media platform able to be far more efficient in terms of revenue generation would be a serious threat to facebook.
Distributed social networking will "kill" Facebook. Except that it won't kill it, but will make it less relevant.
The same thing will happen to Facebook as happened to AOL. It will exist for years to come, but it will be forced to open it's walls, and play nice with an open standard. Younger users will leave for more niche communities which interconnect, and older users will stay with what they're used to.
In other words, in 5 years, Facebook will be for old people. As well as other people who prefer familiarity.
The history of the internet is a history of decentralization winning over walled gardens. There are too many projects pushing for decentralized protocols and solutions. Appleseed, GNU Social, OneSocialWeb, etc. I think the last time I checked the spreadsheet, there was over 50 such projects. Some of us are pretty close to providing a viable alternative, too.
But most importantly, we're not going to give up. No matter how much people may think of Facebook as infallible, we're never going to throw up our arms and say "oh well, I guess we can't win". We're going to keep pushing and refining our solutions and building momentum until we win.
The Next Big Social Network tm may even run our software on the back end, and people will move to a distributed system without even realizing it.
The same thing will happen to Facebook as happened to AOL. It will exist for years to come, but it will be forced to open it's walls, and play nice with an open standard. Younger users will leave for more niche communities which interconnect, and older users will stay with what they're used to.
In other words, in 5 years, Facebook will be for old people. As well as other people who prefer familiarity.
The history of the internet is a history of decentralization winning over walled gardens. There are too many projects pushing for decentralized protocols and solutions. Appleseed, GNU Social, OneSocialWeb, etc. I think the last time I checked the spreadsheet, there was over 50 such projects. Some of us are pretty close to providing a viable alternative, too.
But most importantly, we're not going to give up. No matter how much people may think of Facebook as infallible, we're never going to throw up our arms and say "oh well, I guess we can't win". We're going to keep pushing and refining our solutions and building momentum until we win.
The Next Big Social Network tm may even run our software on the back end, and people will move to a distributed system without even realizing it.
My guess is the lack of adequate revenues that lead to real profits. Last I read, Facebook was breaking even. As they grow toward a billion users, I imagine those costs will rise. This is fine if ad revenues can keep up, but last I checked their average CTR was less than half a percent.
Facebook is odd in that it improves on a previous solution (communication tools: mail, phone, cellphones), but doesn't charge for the utility it brings.
Facebook is odd in that it improves on a previous solution (communication tools: mail, phone, cellphones), but doesn't charge for the utility it brings.
The difference between Facebook and all the software and internet companies that preceded it, is a big one:
All the other companies won because of their products, for whatever reason -- usefulness, ubiquity, etc. If someone came up with a product that had better usefulness, ubiquity, etc. then users could leave.
Google leveraged network effects with publishers. A search engine to rule them all. It had publishers by the proverbial "balls" -- if they didn't play nice, Google could just delist them and they'd lose their main source of traffic.
But the users were always free. Free to switch to yahoo, or bing, at the drop of a hat if they liked their search engines better.
Facebook is the first company I know that has successfully pulled off the following: it has its own USERS by the balls.
If you don't like facebook, you can bitch about it and even delete your facebook account, as various random people claim. And then a couple months later your friends want to share their X (pictures, notes, etc.) with you and not EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. And to do that, you have to join facebook again. Yes, facebook, because joining some other site will do no good.
This works because leaving facebook is no longer as easy as making a personal choice. You now have to create more work for all your "friends" who are sharing stuff with you on facebook.
"Larry, didn't you hear? I got married! Everyone came to my engagement party! It was all over facebook"
"Sorry baby, I'm not on facebook anymore... I guess I'm out of the loop"
This is a new ball game. Of course, facebook also has PUBLISHERS by the balls, just like Google, since it drives lots of traffic to them.
But it's the first company to have users by the balls. So what if you delete your account? You are in a tiny minority. And chances are, half of you will be right back on there the minute your friends refuse to share with you anywhere else.
All the other companies won because of their products, for whatever reason -- usefulness, ubiquity, etc. If someone came up with a product that had better usefulness, ubiquity, etc. then users could leave.
Google leveraged network effects with publishers. A search engine to rule them all. It had publishers by the proverbial "balls" -- if they didn't play nice, Google could just delist them and they'd lose their main source of traffic.
But the users were always free. Free to switch to yahoo, or bing, at the drop of a hat if they liked their search engines better.
Facebook is the first company I know that has successfully pulled off the following: it has its own USERS by the balls.
If you don't like facebook, you can bitch about it and even delete your facebook account, as various random people claim. And then a couple months later your friends want to share their X (pictures, notes, etc.) with you and not EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. And to do that, you have to join facebook again. Yes, facebook, because joining some other site will do no good.
This works because leaving facebook is no longer as easy as making a personal choice. You now have to create more work for all your "friends" who are sharing stuff with you on facebook.
"Larry, didn't you hear? I got married! Everyone came to my engagement party! It was all over facebook"
"Sorry baby, I'm not on facebook anymore... I guess I'm out of the loop"
This is a new ball game. Of course, facebook also has PUBLISHERS by the balls, just like Google, since it drives lots of traffic to them.
But it's the first company to have users by the balls. So what if you delete your account? You are in a tiny minority. And chances are, half of you will be right back on there the minute your friends refuse to share with you anywhere else.
I would agree with you, but I've had 1 new friend join facebook in the last year or two. I've had about 5 leave. I also have a significant number of people who either never will join Facebook (due to attitude, principle or plain un-interestedness) and probably the majority who never log on, even if you send them a direct mail.
So I would be a pretty lousy friend if I just notified people within facebook and ignored my other friends.
So I would be a pretty lousy friend if I just notified people within facebook and ignored my other friends.
A lot of the time, it takes a few iterations before a product becomes truly useful. Once a product has become useful and has fully integrated itself into its customers lives - it's very difficult to replace it.
For many, Facebook solves a unique problem - it provides them with tools to help them manage their various relationships. It's ubiquity is a key part of its solution, and any other platform that wanted to supplant Facebook is obviously going to find it difficult.
Having said that, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think about what will replace Facebook.
As a company becomes larger - it will usually become less nimble. Unforeseen changes in the market's landscape, provide opportunities for new entrants - where the larger Goliath companies aren't as able (or willing) to adapt.
Facebook will be killed (replaced / supplanted) .. but without the benefit of hindsight, it's very difficult to know which company will succeed.
For many, Facebook solves a unique problem - it provides them with tools to help them manage their various relationships. It's ubiquity is a key part of its solution, and any other platform that wanted to supplant Facebook is obviously going to find it difficult.
Having said that, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think about what will replace Facebook.
As a company becomes larger - it will usually become less nimble. Unforeseen changes in the market's landscape, provide opportunities for new entrants - where the larger Goliath companies aren't as able (or willing) to adapt.
Facebook will be killed (replaced / supplanted) .. but without the benefit of hindsight, it's very difficult to know which company will succeed.
Why do we have radios in all our cars? So we can pipe advertising to a captive audience. Why do we have TV's in all our homes? So we can pipe advertising to a captive audience. Why do we have our computers plugged into the internet? Hm.
Why is it that when you buy a phone now it comes with Facebook (and twitter and google)? And, on many plans it's "free" to use Facebook and twitter, and you can't remove it. It's all about the channel. Facebook/Google/Twitter + ISP/Phone Provider = secure advertising channel. Can you turn off your radio? Can you turn off your TV? Can you use a plain old cellphone that just dials a number? The only way to kill Facebook is to turn off the advertising channel.
Why is it that when you buy a phone now it comes with Facebook (and twitter and google)? And, on many plans it's "free" to use Facebook and twitter, and you can't remove it. It's all about the channel. Facebook/Google/Twitter + ISP/Phone Provider = secure advertising channel. Can you turn off your radio? Can you turn off your TV? Can you use a plain old cellphone that just dials a number? The only way to kill Facebook is to turn off the advertising channel.
Facebook is different than Yahoo, Google, Microsoft etc, because of it's social aspect. There will be decades upon decades of memories, photos, videos and all the comments associated with them on fb that most people are not going to want to give up. Today I could switch away from Yahoo to AOL or MSN, Google to Bing and Microsoft Windows to Mac OS X and I wouldn't notice any huge difference. I can't switch away from facebook to another social networking site and have it be of any utility to me - and I can only imagine the dominance of facebook because of this social aspect growing in the years to come.
As an aside, the author feels that Microsoft tried to kill itself with all the delays and bugs in Vista, which I would also disagree with. Google, along with a host of other companies, killed Microsoft - because of the talent drain. Once your best and brightest are jumping ship for, as Michael Lewis would call it, the "new new thing", you are pretty much screwed because your product development is going to start going down the tubes.
As an aside, the author feels that Microsoft tried to kill itself with all the delays and bugs in Vista, which I would also disagree with. Google, along with a host of other companies, killed Microsoft - because of the talent drain. Once your best and brightest are jumping ship for, as Michael Lewis would call it, the "new new thing", you are pretty much screwed because your product development is going to start going down the tubes.
Top level observation - the linked post was made on a blog and was shared via Hacker News. "Facebook" only features as a word in this whole multi-log.
That means, to me, that there is a really solid and significant world outside of Facebook.
That means, to me, that there is a really solid and significant world outside of Facebook.
This article assumes that companies die due to competition. In reality, tech companies die from within. What would kill Facebook is a bunch of dumbbells on the inside making stupid decisions and sticking to them.
> The only company that can kill Facebook is Facebook.
From the end of the third paragraph in the post.
From the end of the third paragraph in the post.
Nothing. Until the time that it is evolving with the way how people wants to connect socially. And Facebook does a good job at it by hiring visionaries, getting people with a good common sense and attracting talents whom they know would be excited being part of a technical social revolution.
Nonetheless, the only thing that could probably kill Facebook is when people stop using it. Simple as that.
Nonetheless, the only thing that could probably kill Facebook is when people stop using it. Simple as that.
What's with all the Vista hate? I mean seriously. I run a MBP mostly with OSX, but on my music mixing machine @ home I run vista and have never had a single problem and greatly prefer it to XP.
The whole thing was just manufactured by angry computerworld journo's who couldn't believe that MS actually started considering making an OS easier to use.
The whole thing was just manufactured by angry computerworld journo's who couldn't believe that MS actually started considering making an OS easier to use.
Major premise: Startups won't be killed by competitors but only by themselves (ref to pg?).
Minor premise: Facebook is still a "startup" (well... in some sense).
Conclusion: Facebook won't be killed by anyone but themselves.
I don't think thinking about "the next big wave" gets you anywhere either. Zuckerberg and Anderson didn't figure out that social networking was going to be big - they invented it instead. When you think about it the basic idea isn't even remarkably clever. However, it turned out keeping track of friends online was really compelling for people. I have to believe this came as a surprise to them as well.
As always, the trick is to think about a problem you're having and to build something to solve it (a cliché at this point). That's certainly what Zuckerberg did with Facebook, which is why it was initially aimed specifically at college students at specific campuses. He was scratching his own itch. The rest of Facebook's story is one of coincidence and evolution.
As always, the trick is to think about a problem you're having and to build something to solve it (a cliché at this point). That's certainly what Zuckerberg did with Facebook, which is why it was initially aimed specifically at college students at specific campuses. He was scratching his own itch. The rest of Facebook's story is one of coincidence and evolution.
Zuckerberg did not 'invent' social networking. If he had, Facebook would not have spent millions of dollars buying patents from Friendster.
The article adds zero value to my knowledge. It's all noise it seems.
Google is killing themselves. In case you have not noticed many of the SERRPS are not good. Today I did a search for "acronis true image". Acronis was not of the first page. In Bing they are number one. These daily changes in the code are finally catching up with them. Then there is the stupid stuff with all the ads, image search that shows other websites with adwords and doorway pages. http://www.seobook.com/google-doorway-pages
No one can kill Google except Google.
No one can kill Facebook except Facebook. Many people don't trust Facebook. That's a problem.
No one can kill Google except Google.
No one can kill Facebook except Facebook. Many people don't trust Facebook. That's a problem.
Acronis is #1 for me. Maybe you've got something weird going on with your computer? Fire up incognito mode of Chrome and see whether you see Acronis then.
P.S. Thanks for posting a specific query. 90% of the complaints I see like this never mention a specific query, which kills me because I want to dig into it. :)
P.S. Thanks for posting a specific query. 90% of the complaints I see like this never mention a specific query, which kills me because I want to dig into it. :)
Today I did a search for "acronis true image". Acronis was not of the first page.
Err? You should check again, acronis.com ranks #1 #2 and #3 for "acronis true image", acronis true image, acronis and "true image" as well.
Wild divergence from actual search results sounds like local malicious activity.
Err? You should check again, acronis.com ranks #1 #2 and #3 for "acronis true image", acronis true image, acronis and "true image" as well.
Wild divergence from actual search results sounds like local malicious activity.
The first 4 links point to the product site: acronis.com http://www.google.com/search?q=acronis+true+image
The 5th - to the wikipedia page about the product.
The 5th - to the wikipedia page about the product.
You could kill facebook in a year or so under the right kind of management. Set a rapid pace of change that users dislike, let the spammers back in, lose data, crash constantly.
Market saturation (everyone who wants to be on facebook is probably already on it) and excessive valuations (which assume the whole world will eventually be on it).
This really made it to the front page?
"What will be the next giant wave?"
Great conclusion.
"What will be the next giant wave?"
Great conclusion.
Half (or more) of the problem with finding an answer is knowing what the question is. It was actually a very good article, in terms of framing and context setting, to help seed the discussion about what the question is. In that regard, it was very valuable.
Don't underestimate the value of a good question; and don't expect every informative article to spoon feed the reader the answers.
Don't underestimate the value of a good question; and don't expect every informative article to spoon feed the reader the answers.
The inability to adapt. And short sight.
This can kill any company.
This can kill any company.
As soon as we all find out what will kill Facebook, we can figure out what will kill WoW!
Conclusion of the article: I don't know what will kill Facebook.
False. Conclusion is: nothing will kill Facebook, or Google, or Microsoft. Stop worrying about "what will kill Facebook".
OK, so the question is "what will be the next giant wave"? What about "will people use whatever the next giant wave will be instead of Facebook?" IOW, will the next big think overlap enough with Facebook usefullness to mean a hit for Facebook?
Supposing the answer is "yes", I'd say FB flaws matter a lot. Even flaws that users don't see now as such, maybe because they see them as unavoidable. What if a new service, based on another model, arised and it hadn't such flaws?
Supposing the answer is "yes", I'd say FB flaws matter a lot. Even flaws that users don't see now as such, maybe because they see them as unavoidable. What if a new service, based on another model, arised and it hadn't such flaws?
No, the next giant wave will not overlap with Facebook's wave. Whatever overlaps with their wave, Facebook will be on top of. People will use whatever that next big thing is along with Facebook, not instead of it.
But you're assuming that there isn't anything that people will choose to use instead of Facebook. I think it's possible that Facebook could be supplanted by another platform.
There'll always be overlap when a competing platform comes into the picture - so any 'death' will necessarily be drawn out.
I like your wave analogy, because it highlights the way that these service-orientated companies are tied to the current socio-economic landscape. This helps to show how competition between companies isn't the most important factor. A change in market conditions can prove just as disastrous (as a good competitor) for a company like Facebook, and this kind of change is probably more likely to signal its demise, because a market-leader's success tends to increase exponentially when conditions stay the same.
I think the most interesting question is; what change would be necessary for people to migrate from Facebook to another platform?
It will happen - but when and how?
There'll always be overlap when a competing platform comes into the picture - so any 'death' will necessarily be drawn out.
I like your wave analogy, because it highlights the way that these service-orientated companies are tied to the current socio-economic landscape. This helps to show how competition between companies isn't the most important factor. A change in market conditions can prove just as disastrous (as a good competitor) for a company like Facebook, and this kind of change is probably more likely to signal its demise, because a market-leader's success tends to increase exponentially when conditions stay the same.
I think the most interesting question is; what change would be necessary for people to migrate from Facebook to another platform?
It will happen - but when and how?
[deleted]
The strong point of Facebook is that so many people are on there, including many who are normally less comfortable using computers. I assume it will keep growing for a while, as there is no real contender in sight. So let's say we reach the point where pretty much everybody has a Facebook account. At that point, it would only seem stronger than before.
The weak point of Facebook is that it lumps everybody into the same "friends" pool. This is not a new observation of course, but is is still a problem, and Facebook hasn't really done much to alleviate it. Sure, you can add people to different groups, set different filters, but for most people (especially those who are less tech-savvy) this is just too much work (or too difficult, even). So the problem remains, and as Facebook gets bigger, so does the problem.
I think that at some point, there will be huge opportunities for "spin-off" sites, that address some kind of niche. There would be a mini-social network were you talk to your family. Another one for friends (of the kind that you go to bars with, for example). One for networking. One for co-workers. Ones for specific games (quite a few people on Facebook have thousands of "friends", most of which they don't really know, but were added for the benefit of playing Mafia Wars, Farmville, etc). And so on.
Some of these already exist, like LinkedIn; and likely, the process is already underway. However, I think such sites would have more success if they were friendly with Facebook in some form or another; log in with your Facebook account, maybe share certain things, etc. (Look at Zynga; would their games have anywhere near the current number of users if they had not integrated with Facebook?)
When you meet new people, online or in real life, in whatever situation, the common denominator would be that they all have Facebook. (Still going by the assumption here that Facebook would get so big that people without an account would be rare.) So it would retain its function as a "hub" where you can find anybody at all; but the actual social interaction, in whatever form, would be done at the spin-off sites. You don't post work-related things to your Facebook because nobody cares but your co-workers. If you had a wild night out, you don't post pictures of it to a specific site, not to Facebook where your mom/kids/spouse/boss can see it. For those things, there would be the aforementioned specialized sites. Likely, it wouldn't be long before we would think of such a situation as normal; you won't post specialized info on Facebook, any more than you would post it in the newspaper.
I am just brainstorming here, but if that would actually happen, Facebook would slowly be supplanted by a myriad of smaller sites, each with their own purpose. Facebook itself would slowly become irrelevant other than as a hub to connect all those specialized sites. Like Microsoft nowadays, it would be big, bulky, probably rich, but it would just kinda sit there; the action and innovation would happen elsewhere.
tl;dr: Hypothetically, there might not be one Facebook killer, rather, it might be replaced by many smaller, specialized sites.
The weak point of Facebook is that it lumps everybody into the same "friends" pool. This is not a new observation of course, but is is still a problem, and Facebook hasn't really done much to alleviate it. Sure, you can add people to different groups, set different filters, but for most people (especially those who are less tech-savvy) this is just too much work (or too difficult, even). So the problem remains, and as Facebook gets bigger, so does the problem.
I think that at some point, there will be huge opportunities for "spin-off" sites, that address some kind of niche. There would be a mini-social network were you talk to your family. Another one for friends (of the kind that you go to bars with, for example). One for networking. One for co-workers. Ones for specific games (quite a few people on Facebook have thousands of "friends", most of which they don't really know, but were added for the benefit of playing Mafia Wars, Farmville, etc). And so on.
Some of these already exist, like LinkedIn; and likely, the process is already underway. However, I think such sites would have more success if they were friendly with Facebook in some form or another; log in with your Facebook account, maybe share certain things, etc. (Look at Zynga; would their games have anywhere near the current number of users if they had not integrated with Facebook?)
When you meet new people, online or in real life, in whatever situation, the common denominator would be that they all have Facebook. (Still going by the assumption here that Facebook would get so big that people without an account would be rare.) So it would retain its function as a "hub" where you can find anybody at all; but the actual social interaction, in whatever form, would be done at the spin-off sites. You don't post work-related things to your Facebook because nobody cares but your co-workers. If you had a wild night out, you don't post pictures of it to a specific site, not to Facebook where your mom/kids/spouse/boss can see it. For those things, there would be the aforementioned specialized sites. Likely, it wouldn't be long before we would think of such a situation as normal; you won't post specialized info on Facebook, any more than you would post it in the newspaper.
I am just brainstorming here, but if that would actually happen, Facebook would slowly be supplanted by a myriad of smaller sites, each with their own purpose. Facebook itself would slowly become irrelevant other than as a hub to connect all those specialized sites. Like Microsoft nowadays, it would be big, bulky, probably rich, but it would just kinda sit there; the action and innovation would happen elsewhere.
tl;dr: Hypothetically, there might not be one Facebook killer, rather, it might be replaced by many smaller, specialized sites.
Time?
Very true. Just like Bing is beginning to give Google a run for their money. There will be something that will eventually make Facebook's tiniest nuances look like glaring flaws.
Look at how IE is struggling against Chrome and Firefox. A few years ago Microsoft was in the comfort zone in terms of market share. Things began to stagnate. Now they are being pushed. They know they have to innovate, or face the possibility of fading away.
It's not a question of what will kill Facebook. It's a question of when.
Look at how IE is struggling against Chrome and Firefox. A few years ago Microsoft was in the comfort zone in terms of market share. Things began to stagnate. Now they are being pushed. They know they have to innovate, or face the possibility of fading away.
It's not a question of what will kill Facebook. It's a question of when.
As long as the "when" is: after the investors and principals have played it through.
Sure, every company gets more vulnerable as it gets bigger and markets evolve, etc. as stated here. but if you notice, NONE of the examples cited above "became vulnerable" before the liquidity event happened.
I could make an exception with Apple, but that seems to be the exception not the rule. in fact, you could argue that there is a 3rd phase of a company (which Apple is in), after the liquidity event, after the company gets vulnerable (think apple 10 years ago, think yahoo now). some die - but some survive to see a new healthy dominance.
Sure, every company gets more vulnerable as it gets bigger and markets evolve, etc. as stated here. but if you notice, NONE of the examples cited above "became vulnerable" before the liquidity event happened.
I could make an exception with Apple, but that seems to be the exception not the rule. in fact, you could argue that there is a 3rd phase of a company (which Apple is in), after the liquidity event, after the company gets vulnerable (think apple 10 years ago, think yahoo now). some die - but some survive to see a new healthy dominance.
Time.
I will.
Someone.
Google, similarly, will be killed not by a competitor rising out of nowhere, but by falling into irrelevance.
Be careful. What's the quote? "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future." People said the same of Yahoo in the late 1990's. It had many competitors but wasn't really challenged for the top spot. Google came out of nowhere and relegated its dominance of search.
"Facebook, on the other hand, doesn't have any such flaws." ... "Facebook is as unkillable as Google." ... "You won 't kill Facebook. No one will."
Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable." Your flimsy advice is now recorded to be ridiculed later because you seem not to understand the very nature of technology.
The next leaders get this sort of insipid advice all the time but, luckily for all of us, they aren't listening.