Comments: 15
By Steve Spalding July 31st, 2007
Under: Featured
Get more articles like this and Register for our Forum.
The blogging world has collectively fallen in love with Facebook. If you listen, you’ll hear everything from “Google Killer” to the “Precursor to Web 3.0” coming out of the blogospere. Since I am a fan of long odds, I am going to go on record as making another prediction. Facebook is probably the finest example of the “youthful exuberance” that is still the driving force beyond much of the tech sector.
Let me explain.
![]()
Before Facebook there was MySpace. If you take a look back, you’ll see many people making the same predictions that now shower Facebook about Rupert Murdoch’s pet project. Why not? It had (has) the eyeballs, the mind share, and the market cap to make it the “next big thing”. The question becomes, what happened? The answer is that Time happened. If you look at the web as iterations towards some end goal, MySpace was Facebook 1.0. It introduced popular culture to the idea of a social Operating System — a place where you could go to core dump your thoughts and feelings for the world to see.
If you want to see Facebook BETA, look no further than Xanga and LiveJournal. In their heyday, they were seen as the beginning of big new things for the web. In a way they were, just as Facebook will be. The end result, however, will not likely be what we expect.
Mind me, right now in someone’s basement the real killer app for the social web is being built. Chances are that the difference between this application and Facebook will only be minor, but the end result will be a substantially better user experience.
Facebook, despite everyone’s claims to the contrary, was built as a network for college students to keep up with one another. It is not designed as a tool for business communication, it is not designed as a tool that my grandparents would be interested in using, it is not designed (like Google or AOL) to be so valuable to the public at large that leaving it would cut them off from the wider world.
What Facebook lacks is what I like to call “barriers to exit”. Ask someone over at Friendster what that means. There is absolutely no reason that people can’t just pick up and move over to some other service, except for maybe brand loyalty and inertia. In order for Facebook to work well, it needs people actively updating their profiles, and the only reason that people do so now is that they don’t have a more interesting place to store their profiles.
AOL’s barrier to exit was the fact that it held your credit card ransom, it takes a lot of effort to call up to cancel a subscription. Google relies on the fact that it is materially superior to the competition (at least in the mind’s of its users) and it provides a commodity that is universally useful for all demographics, namely searching for generic keywords. Facebook relies entirely on two of the most fickle pillars that any company has ever banked on — the opinion of college students, and the attention of the Web 2.0 early adopters.
What is the future of social networking? I’ll put my money on the fact that it isn’t Facebook. The smell test is whether my Grandparents would find any value at all in the product. They would use AOL because it is simple, and they would use Google because it helps them find recipes or search the family tree or whatever it is that they want with the wider Internet. The idea of Facebook to them would be, at best, silly.
Future Social Network developers take notice, if you are in the market to create the next truly disruptive technology take a look outside of your tidy tech bubble, these are not the people you will need to impress. Until you create a social network that is as valuable to me as to your Grandma, you will have some work to do.
[Be sure to subscribe to the RSS feed before leaving]
Print This Post
15 Responses
Robert Scoble
August 1st, 2007 at 4:43 am
1OK, I assume you’re correct that Facebook is only for “those inside my tidy tech bubble.” But if that’s true, how did Facebook get 35 million users? Or, is “my tidy tech bubble” really 35 million strong? If so, damn!
Steve
August 1st, 2007 at 5:03 am
2Easy Robert, it saturated its niche (college students). However, it still lacks the kind of mainstream appeal of services like AOL in the mid-90s (which is the closest proxy to Facebook’s walled garden that I can come up with).
Even if you assumed that every person who uses MySpace is unique from those using Facebook (which they are not) and they all convert (which they won’t) you would *still* have significantly less than 100 million people using Facebook. While these numbers are incredible by web app standards, they aren’t that great unless Facebook manages to push some serious advertising inventory.
I have been using Facebook for 4 years now Robert and I have seen it through almost all of its major feature releases. I have yet to see a single one that proves that it is a piece of software ready to disrupt society at large (outside of the college/tech niche it embraces).
Robert Scoble
August 1st, 2007 at 6:26 am
3Read this: http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1555
I have a different perspective than you do. I have 4,200 Facebook contacts. They almost all are older than 30. Quite a few execs. Many influentials. People I do business with.
I don’t care about existing audiences. I care about two things:
1) Growth.
2) Influence.
Facebook has both: in spades.
That tells me that the existing audiences will flip in the next year or two.
Two years ago we were having the same discussion about Flickr. Now it’s moving up the chart very rapidly.
It just takes time.
Steve
August 1st, 2007 at 11:54 am
4We could have said the same thing about Second Life. While the story has not been fully told for the site, I would have to say that it is going to be written into history as the introduction to an interesting concept, not as the concept itself.
For the tech crowd (including the execs that you mention, many of whom are the type who want to be seen as being on the cutting edge of technology) this is still their early introduction to Facebook. Of course there will be many people who adopt it for the sake of adoption, and even use it for a time. A better question than rapid growth, however, is sustained retention over a period of *years*, not months.
How many of these same execs will be keeping up with their Facebook profiles in 3 years, when 50 new web apps come along to steal their attention?
Growth and influence can never be measured in a microcosm Robert, and it certainly can never be measured by the tendencies of early adopters. If you take a look at the trend of use of a typical college Freshman who starts using Facebook it follows a very particular pattern.
Interest. “Wow, what a neat thing. Friend, Friend, Friend!”
Obsession. “I have so many friends, time to manage them!”
Irritation. “Man, why do I need to keep updating this thing?”
And sometime around graduation,
Rebellion. “OK, enough is enough. I certainly have better things to do.”
Facebook has every reason to want to grow their market segments because I am sure they realize that the second their users enter the “real world” (unless they work deeply in technology), they tend to stop updating.
I’ll never convince you of any of this, but just think about it Robert.
Facebook Is NOT For Business » Publishing 2.0
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
5[...] Steve Spalding’s Case Against Facebook points to Facebook’s lack of universal utility: It is not designed as a tool for business communication, it is not designed as a tool that my grandparents would be interested in using, it is not designed (like Google or AOL) to be so valuable to the public at large that leaving it would cut them off from the wider world. [...]
Maggy Young
August 4th, 2007 at 8:14 am
6I think you’ve got the ‘good for both me & my grandma’ angle wrong. To me all the arguments both sides add up except this.
To be a major portal, you may need to be popular with the majority of frequent users, but I’m not sure that includes grandparents. Aren’t they likely to be always in the minority?
Is there anything (other than search) which will appeal to all generations? I think maybe this type of site can’t exist. Teens & students are still the main users & wouldn’t they hate the idea of using a site that their grandma enjoys? And want something of their own? Sites are communities & you don’t see your grandma down the disco.
Maybe the net is fated to be fragmented along a generational divide like popular music and similarly, moving to the next big thing. So Friendster was Elvis, MySpace was the Beatles, F/Book is Eminem and the ‘next big thing’ will be something your granny will hate. And the more grandma hates it, the huger it will be.
Steve
August 4th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
7I partially agree with you there. What I was trying to convey is that there are certain technologies with *wide* appeal, and there are others with very niche appeal. The technologies with niche appeal have a fairly low ceiling as far as their ability to scale.
I think that Facebook is a great theory, and an interesting product but I strongly question its ability to scale up to the level it would need to support itself 5 years down the line.
By support I mean substantially increase in revenue and some non-acquisition exit strategy.
Technology, Thoughts, and Trinkets » Web 2.0, Facebook, Government, and Business
August 5th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
8[...] Steve Spalding makes an interesting point in his post, entitled ‘How to Make a Case Against Facebook.’ Essentially, for a social networking application to be ‘killer’ it has to appeal to grandma. He writes, The smell test is whether my Grandparents would find any value at all in the product. They would use AOL because it is simple, and they would use Google because it helps them find recipes or search the family tree or whatever it is that they want with the wider Internet. The idea of Facebook to them would be, at best, silly. (Source) [...]
How To Create A Successful Social Network | How To Split An Atom
September 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
9[...] AIM was to that era what Facebook is to now. It was a service that allowed people to communicate easily with their friends and provide public information for their peers. This public information came in the form of the AIM profile, which became more and more elaborate as the service evolved. [...]
How To Ensure Your Startup Will Fail | How To Split An Atom
September 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
10[...] This is the problem faced by entrepreneurs who start off as pure developer. The idea seems pretty well founded. If you have a great product, people will flock to it. This could not be any more wrong. If Web 2.0 has taught us anything, it is that there are a ton of extremely talented developers out there and many of them have made amazing products. Yet, somehow, there is only one YouTube and Facebook. [...]
How To Expand On FriendVox’s Real Value | How To Split An Atom
September 25th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
11[...] by Steve Spalding | Filed under How To Keep Up | Stumble it! facebook friendvox instant messagingSome might call me hyper-critical of the social“utility” de jour, Facebook. I think what it amounts to is that some of the stronger voices in tech punditry seem to believe Facebook is something that it was never designed to be, specifically, a tool for serious business communication. Today, amidst news of Facebook’s $15 Billion valuation courtesy of Microsoft and their legal woes courtesy of New York State I have found a reason that it is a very good day to be Mark Zuckerburg. [...]
Source Web Publishing Tool
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
12Publishing to the World Wide Web made easy…
Any new endeavor can be a daunting experience. Do you remember how it was when you started a new job, not knowing anyone in the organization or the internal politics etc.?…
Facebook - As Dreams May Come (They Also Go) | How To Split An Atom
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am
13[...] was never, could never be the Social Network for everyone. It could not, no matter how much the tech blogosphere would have liked to believe [...]
How To Ensure Your Startup Will Fail « Hyper Passionate Entrepreneurs
February 28th, 2008 at 10:57 am
14[...] This is the problem faced by entrepreneurs who start off as pure developers. The idea seems pretty well founded. If you have a great product, people will flock to it. This could not be any more wrong. If Web 2.0 has taught us anything, it is that there are a ton of extremely talented developers out there and many of them have made amazing products. Yet, somehow, there is only one YouTube and Facebook. [...]
Facebook For “Local” Businesses | How To Split An Atom
May 28th, 2008 at 2:40 am
15[...] I was recently asked by a local Chamber of Commerce about how Facebook can be used to “advance” local businesses. [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Related Posts
Sponsors
Read More
Join The Network
Readers
Popular Threads
Subscribe To Our Email Feed
Recent Comments
© 2008 How To Split An Atom - Entries (RSS) - Comments (RSS) - Log in Powered by WordPress
Created by: Hector Jarquin brought to you by: How to Split an Atom