Ask HN: What, if anything, will come after Facebook for human connection?
13 comments
> What, if anything, will come after Facebook for human connection?
"If anything"? I can pretty much guarantee you that in 50 years (or 100, to stay on the safe side), nobody will be using Facebook anymore. The question is not "if" but "what".
Speculating on coming tech is risky, but my prediction is a two-way trend: graphic and text-based communication. Email is one of the oldest computer communication tools around (and basically a continuation of the millenia-old practice of writing letters) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Text-based communication is ideal for formulating complex ideas and offers low storage/delivery costs. I don't know whether we'll still be calling it email, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be writing some sort of letters in 2100. On the other hand, private conversation is a lot more enjoyable when it is face-to-face, giving the participants the opportunity to latch on to non-linguistic cues such as voice inflection or facial expressions. Thus I would imagine that some sort of telepresence communication platform is going to be pretty important in 2100 (akin to Skype et al. today, though perhaps with elements of virtual reality).
tl;dr Facebook as a company isn't going to stick around for ever, but letters and visual chatting are here to stay.
"If anything"? I can pretty much guarantee you that in 50 years (or 100, to stay on the safe side), nobody will be using Facebook anymore. The question is not "if" but "what".
Speculating on coming tech is risky, but my prediction is a two-way trend: graphic and text-based communication. Email is one of the oldest computer communication tools around (and basically a continuation of the millenia-old practice of writing letters) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Text-based communication is ideal for formulating complex ideas and offers low storage/delivery costs. I don't know whether we'll still be calling it email, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be writing some sort of letters in 2100. On the other hand, private conversation is a lot more enjoyable when it is face-to-face, giving the participants the opportunity to latch on to non-linguistic cues such as voice inflection or facial expressions. Thus I would imagine that some sort of telepresence communication platform is going to be pretty important in 2100 (akin to Skype et al. today, though perhaps with elements of virtual reality).
tl;dr Facebook as a company isn't going to stick around for ever, but letters and visual chatting are here to stay.
I'd think Snapchat was kind of the next best thing, which is short videos that can be shared with friends. Most sources say that video is becoming "the thing". Although I'd still say that unique readable content will still dominate for the long haul, as it always has. I'm one to still prefer text over video.
Facebook can be a force for good, if they remove people's currently trained over-dependence on watching their like/view/reshare counts.
These artificial numbers applied to all social interaction, fuck society up in all kinds of unexpected ways. These numbers are required to keep the advertising revenues flowing and can still be collected and supplied to them without causing social fabric damage.
The fallout and constructive handling of this mess is going to take a while to understand and get right. That said I think Facebook and YouTube and Twitter even though they are responsible for the mess, are also our best bets at figuring this stuff out.
These aren't tech problems. These are social problems requiring expertise from community builders, politicians, sociologists, ecologists, psychologist, lawyers, journalists, law enforcement etc
I think the evolution/next stage of the social network will be driven by such folk much more than the techie. The techie was required to create speed and scale. That job is complete. How we use the scale and speed, understanding it's positive and negative effect on society and utilizing it for the greater good is something tech companies will be hiring a lot of non-tech expertise to figure out.
I would like to see someone like Obama put in charge of Facebook to see what is possible.
These artificial numbers applied to all social interaction, fuck society up in all kinds of unexpected ways. These numbers are required to keep the advertising revenues flowing and can still be collected and supplied to them without causing social fabric damage.
The fallout and constructive handling of this mess is going to take a while to understand and get right. That said I think Facebook and YouTube and Twitter even though they are responsible for the mess, are also our best bets at figuring this stuff out.
These aren't tech problems. These are social problems requiring expertise from community builders, politicians, sociologists, ecologists, psychologist, lawyers, journalists, law enforcement etc
I think the evolution/next stage of the social network will be driven by such folk much more than the techie. The techie was required to create speed and scale. That job is complete. How we use the scale and speed, understanding it's positive and negative effect on society and utilizing it for the greater good is something tech companies will be hiring a lot of non-tech expertise to figure out.
I would like to see someone like Obama put in charge of Facebook to see what is possible.
Facebook is a basic utility at this point. The products that attempt to "replace" it come in 4-6 year waves, reflective of the typical duration of high school or college. A new social app arrives, and if it breaks some initial barrier of discoverability (usually through growth hacks), it can enjoy some initial success on college or high school campuses. Users naturally arrive in four year cohorts. If the app has "staying power," the users will graduate and spread it to their new networks. Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Initial success for 4-6 years does not guarantee future success. Yik Yak is a great example of an app with initial traction that failed to capitalize. Much of that failure was attributable to product decisions. However, from the very beginning, they were tied to a rock in rising tides. Growth of YikYak benefitted from college culture, but the product itself became too dependent on that culture, limiting its ability to spread post-college. As a result, YikYak churned users as they graduated, and eventually there was nobody to replace them.
Snapchat appears to be the most recent company with "staying power." College campuses popularized Snapchat, but the product does not inherently depend on a college community like YikYak did. People continue using Snapchat after graduation.
When evaluating if a company will be the "next Facebook", you need to look at its "staying power." Can it break the 6 year threshold? Once that happens, it seems that public recognition and becoming a "household brand" is sufficient to sustain growth until at least the 10+ year mark (or lead to acquisition by FB [0]). For examples, see: facebook, twitter, instagram, whatsapp, youtube, twitch, reddit...
The next question is, what makes facebook different from all those other companies lasting 10+ years? How do you replicate that?
[0] Also, consider that we will never know how instagram or whatsapp would have developed, had they avoided acquisition by FB, like Snapchat did.
Initial success for 4-6 years does not guarantee future success. Yik Yak is a great example of an app with initial traction that failed to capitalize. Much of that failure was attributable to product decisions. However, from the very beginning, they were tied to a rock in rising tides. Growth of YikYak benefitted from college culture, but the product itself became too dependent on that culture, limiting its ability to spread post-college. As a result, YikYak churned users as they graduated, and eventually there was nobody to replace them.
Snapchat appears to be the most recent company with "staying power." College campuses popularized Snapchat, but the product does not inherently depend on a college community like YikYak did. People continue using Snapchat after graduation.
When evaluating if a company will be the "next Facebook", you need to look at its "staying power." Can it break the 6 year threshold? Once that happens, it seems that public recognition and becoming a "household brand" is sufficient to sustain growth until at least the 10+ year mark (or lead to acquisition by FB [0]). For examples, see: facebook, twitter, instagram, whatsapp, youtube, twitch, reddit...
The next question is, what makes facebook different from all those other companies lasting 10+ years? How do you replicate that?
[0] Also, consider that we will never know how instagram or whatsapp would have developed, had they avoided acquisition by FB, like Snapchat did.
This topic is highly speculative, but my guess is something that's only possible via another technogical wave -- perhaps AIs that post interesting context of our lives on our behalf, or a new accessible medium better than text / photo.
My thought: just because social attitudes change and something develops a stigma doesn't mean that thing won't still be commercially successful for a long, long time. Television, fast food and sugary drinks, over-sized cars, telemarketing...
It might be that in 5 years, Facebook will be as popular in the Bay Area as McDonald's is. I'm not sure that in that scenario Facebook won't still be a strong business.
Don't get me wrong: I think we're due for a cultural backlash against the kind of "information sugar" Facebook embodies. But I'm skeptical about how much such a backlash would really accomplish.
Maybe you'll see some kind of "up-market" services emerge that cater to new tastes (in this case: greater value placed on limited distraction/sustained attention). What is the Whole Foods Market in this area?
It might be that in 5 years, Facebook will be as popular in the Bay Area as McDonald's is. I'm not sure that in that scenario Facebook won't still be a strong business.
Don't get me wrong: I think we're due for a cultural backlash against the kind of "information sugar" Facebook embodies. But I'm skeptical about how much such a backlash would really accomplish.
Maybe you'll see some kind of "up-market" services emerge that cater to new tastes (in this case: greater value placed on limited distraction/sustained attention). What is the Whole Foods Market in this area?
I have a rule of thumb that i've developed over the years: anytime someone tells or asks about X's killer, its a sign X is firmly established in the market and will not go away anytime soon. When people actually start ignoring X in favor of Y, then it changes: people just stopped talking about Myspace and its flaws.
Now that's a delicious heuristic. Thank you!
Does WhatsApp count, even though Facebook owns it? I use WhatsApp exclusively.
facebook was great for helping human connection but obviously comes with it's limitations. apps like facebook/whatsapp clearly expand the breadth of who we can connect to and how often, but there's so much more to tap into when it comes to human connection that text/photos won't do. the fact that you mention "if anything" is almost a little depressing to me. surely technology will have a lot more to offer.
video chat is another connection mechanism that provides more depth in ways that text/photo sharing never will -e.g. it reaches more of our senses.
the next big thing will be something very different and the trick will be getting it into every home. imo, it's clearly virtual reality related. i should be able to put on a headset/glasses and and sit in my living room with a friend and have that beer while chatting with them so it feels like they're in the room with me. the more real this can feel the better.
i'd imagine google/facebook are already racing to find this next big thing today. getting this into every home is the key. this is a race worth investing a lot into imo. if someone else can beat one of these big companies to this, they'll find themselves in position to surpass them.
video chat is another connection mechanism that provides more depth in ways that text/photo sharing never will -e.g. it reaches more of our senses.
the next big thing will be something very different and the trick will be getting it into every home. imo, it's clearly virtual reality related. i should be able to put on a headset/glasses and and sit in my living room with a friend and have that beer while chatting with them so it feels like they're in the room with me. the more real this can feel the better.
i'd imagine google/facebook are already racing to find this next big thing today. getting this into every home is the key. this is a race worth investing a lot into imo. if someone else can beat one of these big companies to this, they'll find themselves in position to surpass them.
Why is it "clearly virtual reality related"?
i think that people are beginning to find these more shallow ways of connecting less meaningful and while they will always serve a purpose, i think that technology such as virtual reality will enable people who are not in the same room together to connect with one another in more meaningful and real (feeling) ways.
+1 for the VR "feeling transmitting Tech" thing.
however it might be a bit scary to use it in the long term I expect a short hype like with Chatroulette or SecondLife because everybody wants to try it at least one time but itl only stick with a few of those Initial Users and serve a real purpose there...
however it might be a bit scary to use it in the long term I expect a short hype like with Chatroulette or SecondLife because everybody wants to try it at least one time but itl only stick with a few of those Initial Users and serve a real purpose there...
What are your thoughts? I don't have much to say, I just want to read and reflect.