How long will Facebook last?

[BenBurch]

Because eventually something achieves a critical mass. MySpace didn't. I never had a MySpace page. But even my mom has a Facebook page, as do most of her friends.

I don't think they're as big as Google or Microsoft yet are they?

Compuserve had critical mass.

AOL had critical mass.

Livejournal had critical mass.

Geocities had critical mass.

It's all fashion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not following that question. Can you elaborate?

With the WWW who thought it would be a multibillion dollar idea? But with the next big social networking thing, that is clearly a multibillion dollar idea. That is the difference the comercial value of the internet is proven everyday, so anything that revolutionary would be a clear major cash cow to anyone.

So why give up the money to make it decentralized?

I'd say that Craigslist is arguably comparable to Facebook. Amazon and Ebay provide a service by helping to ensure that transactions are done fairly.

Ebay does little if any more than Facebook. It lets people gossip about their purchases if they want to, but then facebook is full of gossip.

This is probably our fundamental difference. I don't think it's possible for Facebook to retain its dominance for the long term. For me, the question is whether they can use their current revenue stream, resources, and reputation to let them get into a more sustainable market.

I think there would need to be a technical revolution. I mean why hasn't the internet become a mature market? How many new american car companies have become household names in the past 50 years? And the automobile has less of a captive market than facebook.

The only thing with out a revolution in communication that I could see doing that would be antitrust action breaking facebook up.

I don't think that there will continue to be a benefit to have the Facebook-type content in one central place, any more than there's a benefit to having all the web hosting done by one site, or all of the email, or even internet access.

It is not about centralized or decentralized it is about the benefits of having a social network that everyone is on. That is facebooks #1 advantage now.

Continuing with my theme, I don't think anyone is going to "beat" facebook, any more than anyone "beat" AOL.

Yea email is soo 1995

 

[ponderingturtle]

Compuserve had critical mass.

AOL had critical mass.

Livejournal had critical mass.

Geocities had critical mass.

It's all fashion.

So they all had more than 500 million active users? Wow I did not know any of them had more users than the population of the US. I thought any of them had at most was AOL's 30 million or way less than 10% of facebook active users.

My mom also never had any of those except facebook.

 

[dasmiller]

With the WWW who thought it would be a multibillion dollar idea? But with the next big social networking thing, that is clearly a multibillion dollar idea. That is the difference the comercial value of the internet is proven everyday, so anything that revolutionary would be a clear major cash cow to anyone.

So why give up the money to make it decentralized?

Oh, nobody's going to give it up voluntarily.

Ebay does little if any more than Facebook. It lets people gossip about their purchases if they want to, but then facebook is full of gossip.

Ebay keeps statistics and ratings of all of the buyers and sellers. Those statistics are very useful when deciding who to buy from.

I think there would need to be a technical revolution. I mean why hasn't the internet become a mature market? How many new american car companies have become household names in the past 50 years? And the automobile has less of a captive market than facebook.

I agree that social networking is an immature market. Why does that argue for Facebook's longevity?

The only thing with out a revolution in communication that I could see doing that would be antitrust action breaking facebook up.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not seeing that.

It is not about centralized or decentralized it is about the benefits of having a social network that everyone is on. That is facebooks #1 advantage now.

Right now, yes.

Yea email is soo 1995

I'm not following that.

 

[icerat]

Compuserve had critical mass.

AOL had critical mass.

Livejournal had critical mass.

Geocities had critical mass.

It's all fashion.

As pointed out, none of these came even remotely close to approaching Facebook's numbers. Secondly, none of them were so connected into other aspects of the internet

 

[Babbylonian]

Two big differences: AOL and Compuserve had customers that paid for their service, and the Internet wasn't yet as ubiquitous when they were in their respective primes.

There was a time when AOL was the primary conduit to the Internet for individuals. Facebook on the other hand is just another place to go on the Internet -- a popular place right now to be sure, but there's nothing says it will remain popular indefinitely.

 

[Varanid]

I have way to many secret lives and mutually exclusive realities to risk having a facebook page. I am continuously amazed at the variety of ways people use this tool to get themselves into trouble.

I like failbook a lot though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Two big differences: AOL and Compuserve had customers that paid for their service, and the Internet wasn't yet as ubiquitous when they were in their respective primes.

There was a time when AOL was the primary conduit to the Internet for individuals. Facebook on the other hand is just another place to go on the Internet -- a popular place right now to be sure, but there's nothing says it will remain popular indefinitely.

It is not just on the internet, it is on peoples phones and probably more and more devices as time goes on.

Many people don't need to go onto the web to get to facebook.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, nobody's going to give it up voluntarily.

So who is going to invent the hip new social networking phenomena that no one owns?

 

[Weak Kitten]

It's got a pretty cruddy user interface, it's organizational tools are practically non-existent, and it gets in the way of third party developers actually doing any real innovation. They don't even like people doing pretty things with their logo (I hated every time I had to do advertisements for them).

I say it'll go just like AOL did. That is, unless someone comes out with a better site with some real tools for organizing and keeping track of your friends. Then Facebook will die quickly and without much mourning.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Let's all make a pact to return to this thread in a year. Will Facebook exist then? Will it still be the cat's meow? Time will tell.

 

[dasmiller]

So who is going to invent the hip new social networking phenomena that no one owns?

I don't think it will happen like that. I think that social networking will become more dispersed, and there won't need to be a single site for it.

For comparison, look at email. Back when email was shiny and new, and networks generally didn't talk to each other, it would have been very advantageous to have a single email system that all of your friends used.

Fast forward to today: email protocols are pretty well standardized and everybody can exchange email with everyone else, whether they're using AOL mail, GMail, sbcglobal.net, hotmail, etc. Nobody can 'own' a grand unified email system now because there's a grand dispersed email system.

I think it will go similarly for social networking. Everyone wants a piece of social networking, and I think that in the long run, a lot of organizations are going to get pieces of it, just like a lot of organizations now have pieces of the email world.

Of course, now the programmer in me is already sketching up how you'd split the Facebook functionality down to a few interface specs that wouldn't rely on any central site.

 

[Steve001]

I just heard that Facebook is worth more than giant Boeing.

But, how long can Facebook last? Aren't the chances high that something bigger and better will come out in 5 years or so?

Take your pick 5/ 21/ 2011 or 12/12/12. I wouldn't worry much what happens to FB in 5 years.

 

[Eddie Dane]

It's got a pretty cruddy user interface, it's organizational tools are practically non-existent, and it gets in the way of third party developers actually doing any real innovation. They don't even like people doing pretty things with their logo (I hated every time I had to do advertisements for them).

I say it'll go just like AOL did. That is, unless someone comes out with a better site with some real tools for organizing and keeping track of your friends. Then Facebook will die quickly and without much mourning.

Very good point.

It is a uniquely confusing browsing experience.

Maybe Google's Orkut has a future after all, as Google has all the handy office goodies that they could integrate.

 

[welshdean]

I was on mybookface 'til I got pissed off with not being able to use it, lasted about 12 mths, visiting it about 6 times. I only joined because I live 200 miles from my family and friends and it seemed a good way to keep in touch. When I realised that it was simply a portal for my sisters, their friends and my female friends to post inane shoite such as "baby is poorly today, just watching CSI while it sleeps, my hubby is a prick!" I disabled my account.
I'll give it 5 years before Mumsnet, or similar, find a way of networking bored women.

BTW: Does anyone know how to delete (not disable) my fbook a/c?

 

[Morrigan]

How's MySpace doing?

I don't see any reason why Facebook will avoid the same fate.

MySpace is still widely used by bands for music networking, FYI. Which is unfortunate since it's so horrible really.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think it will happen like that. I think that social networking will become more dispersed, and there won't need to be a single site for it.

So you think that it will stop being beneficial to be able to find people you knew in highschool and the like? Why?

For comparison, look at email. Back when email was shiny and new, and networks generally didn't talk to each other, it would have been very advantageous to have a single email system that all of your friends used.

Yes you seem to think people will step away from facebook and go to twitter or email. I don't see why people would do that.

Fast forward to today: email protocols are pretty well standardized and everybody can exchange email with everyone else, whether they're using AOL mail, GMail, sbcglobal.net, hotmail, etc. Nobody can 'own' a grand unified email system now because there's a grand dispersed email system.

So you really think that the goverment is going to invent the new social networking protocall?

 

[dasmiller]

So you think that it will stop being beneficial to be able to find people you knew in highschool and the like? Why?

No.

Yes you seem to think people will step away from facebook and go to twitter or email. I don't see why people would do that.

No, I don't.

So you really think that the goverment is going to invent the new social networking protocall?

No, I don't. I haven't said anything like that. We're talking in circles here. I obviously haven't been able to communicate my impression, and I don't think another 5 rounds will clarify things. Let's simply agree to disagree on this.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Facebook is huge like Microsoft or Google, and if anything comes along it will adapt and change. AOL relied on things not changing. Dial up internet controlled by AOL forever! And cable modems and the rest of the internet later, they were wrong.

However, I have Time Warner, and they called their internet service Road Runner. If they had instead called it AOL and converted AOL dial-up users into AOL cable modem users, wireless users, etc., then AOL would still be around today. Someone screwed that up. It didn't have to tank.

All I can say, and this is true of virtually everyone I know, is that I haven't been on MySpace in months, but I am on Facebook nearly every day.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Facebook is huge like Microsoft or Google, and if anything comes along it will adapt and change. AOL relied on things not changing. Dial up internet controlled by AOL forever! And cable modems and the rest of the internet later, they were wrong.

However, I have Time Warner, and they called their internet service Road Runner. If they had instead called it AOL and converted AOL dial-up users into AOL cable modem users, wireless users, etc., then AOL would still be around today. Someone screwed that up. It didn't have to tank.

All I can say, and this is true of virtually everyone I know, is that I haven't been on MySpace in months, but I am on Facebook nearly every day.

The thing about AOL is that they became a internet portal not a company that provided any content people needed. Then it became that the companies that owned the wires provided the access to the internet. They couldn't really get around that.