Will Facebook eventually die the way Myspace did? (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

If facebook still just catered to college students, I'd say it would probably die quickly because younger people like shiny new things whether they are substantively different or not. But now that it has several generations of families & friends on it I don't know that it will come soon.

I have my account set up. I have some pics from different events. I've located and friended most of the people I ever cared about. My high school, undergrad and law school all have pages to keep alums up to date on upcoming events/reunions. Most people I do know don't really update all that often. But about once a month I'll get a message that someone's coming through Chicago and would like to get together. Unless facebook shut down, I don't see a reason to migrate to another site to do exactly what facebook does for me now.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

I think facebook will outlast twitter. Exactly when it will die is a fascinating question. I'd give it at least five more good years . . . but things move so fast, who knows?

It will die when there is a massive security breach, which will probably happen eventually.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm 100% sure Twitter is here to stay. It can be a valuable source of information.But what about Facebook? Is it still a novelty that people will get sick of sooner or later?

I've dabbled ever so lightly with Twitter but it seems clear to me that the more work you put into it the more useful it becomes with regards to news/current events. As a regular reader of the forums here it even benefits me indirectly - Sunday morning player updates during football season as an example. On the other hand, Facebook has a bad case of "is that all there is." It's great for saying hi to Aunt Mollie every once in a blue moon, but really it strikes me as an email+ type of application and nothing more. As a user, I'm all ears if somebody can make a compelling case why I should take a deeper interest in what Facebook can do for me.Ultimately I think a standard will be created where individuals own an object, we'll call it a "user profile," and they will use their profile to plug into a wide variety of web sites and applications. ... This user profile will superset everything, even your SSN. Eventually John Doe will use the same credentials to authenticate with FBG forums as they do to cast a vote in national elections. ... Geez, it's hard to get abstract on beer 2, but the gist I'm driving at is eventually we will have one login to the world and there will be no need for sites like Facebook to wrap the internet in a bow for us.

 

[goonsquad]

Eventually? Sure, I'd suppose.But facebook has become integrated into daily life in the sense of building your own personal community(ies) in a way that no other application, tool, technology ever has. As such, it will be far more engrained than other examples such as myspace which told others about who you were, but did not become a complete part of your daily life, ritual and the way to connect with past and current friends and relatives.

Okay, so why couldn't another piece of software replace Facebook? The blueprint is there. It will happen.

The blueprint isn't there. No one will beat Facebook by following the Facebook blueprint. People are already invested in Facebook, all of their friends and relatives are already on Facebook. Facebook has done a masterful job of extending itself beyond being just a location you go to, with Facebook Connect and the Like buttons, Facebook has become your persistent online persona. It will not be easily replaced, especially by a clone following the same blueprint. Facebook has won this generation of the war the same way Google has. It will take a major technological revolution, one which redefines what the Internet is and how we interact with it, to displace Facebook. The move from the Internet to mobile apps looks to be the next evolution, but Facebook is proving capable of evolving along. It will take an even bigger shift (the cloud?).

 

[urbanhack]

I'm 100% sure Twitter is here to stay. It can be a valuable source of information.

But what about Facebook? Is it still a novelty that people will get sick of sooner or later?

I've dabbled ever so lightly with Twitter but it seems clear to me that the more work you put into it the more useful it becomes with regards to news/current events. As a regular reader of the forums here it even benefits me indirectly - Sunday morning player updates during football season as an example. On the other hand, Facebook has a bad case of "is that all there is." It's great for saying hi to Aunt Mollie every once in a blue moon, but really it strikes me as an email+ type of application and nothing more. As a user, I'm all ears if somebody can make a compelling case why I should take a deeper interest in what Facebook can do for me.

Ultimately I think a standard will be created where individuals own an object, we'll call it a "user profile," and they will use their profile to plug into a wide variety of web sites and applications. ... This user profile will superset everything, even your SSN. Eventually John Doe will use the same credentials to authenticate with FBG forums as they do to cast a vote in national elections. ... Geez, it's hard to get abstract on beer 2, but the gist I'm driving at is eventually we will have one login to the world and there will be no need for sites like Facebook to wrap the internet in a bow for us.

 

[goonsquad]

I'm 100% sure Twitter is here to stay. It can be a valuable source of information.

But what about Facebook? Is it still a novelty that people will get sick of sooner or later?

I've dabbled ever so lightly with Twitter but it seems clear to me that the more work you put into it the more useful it becomes with regards to news/current events. As a regular reader of the forums here it even benefits me indirectly - Sunday morning player updates during football season as an example. On the other hand, Facebook has a bad case of "is that all there is." It's great for saying hi to Aunt Mollie every once in a blue moon, but really it strikes me as an email+ type of application and nothing more. As a user, I'm all ears if somebody can make a compelling case why I should take a deeper interest in what Facebook can do for me.

Ultimately I think a standard will be created where individuals own an object, we'll call it a "user profile," and they will use their profile to plug into a wide variety of web sites and applications. ... This user profile will superset everything, even your SSN. Eventually John Doe will use the same credentials to authenticate with FBG forums as they do to cast a vote in national elections. ... Geez, it's hard to get abstract on beer 2, but the gist I'm driving at is eventually we will have one login to the world and there will be no need for sites like Facebook to wrap the internet in a bow for us.

This is exactly what Facebook is doing. Your Facebook profile is becoming your defacto login everywhere, online and in mobile apps. With mobile and cloud the idea of what the "Internet" is is being blurred. The virtual and real worlds come closer together, Facebook is positioning themselves to be your primary 'user account'.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is exactly what Facebook is doing. Your Facebook profile is becoming your defacto login everywhere, online and in mobile apps. With mobile and cloud the idea of what the "Internet" is is being blurred. The virtual and real worlds come closer together, Facebook is positioning themselves to be your primary 'user account'.

Yeah, I think it's Facebook versus Google for that in the immediate future.Stuff like Gmail, Google docs, Google music, Google reader, Google maps, and so on (all of which look nicely positioned for the transfer from PCs to mobile) . . . Google is obviously the default login for all of those things.But for non-Google sites, to the extent they're participating in a single-account-login thingy, logging in with your facebook account seems like a fairly common option.

 

[Rick James]

This is exactly what Facebook is doing. Your Facebook profile is becoming your defacto login everywhere, online and in mobile apps. With mobile and cloud the idea of what the "Internet" is is being blurred. The virtual and real worlds come closer together, Facebook is positioning themselves to be your primary 'user account'.

Yeah, I think it's Facebook versus Google for that in the immediate future.Stuff like Gmail, Google docs, Google music, Google reader, Google maps, and so on (all of which look nicely positioned for the transfer from PCs to mobile) . . . Google is obviously the default login for all of those things.

But for non-Google sites, to the extent they're participating in a single-account-login thingy, logging in with your facebook account seems like a fairly common option.

but how many people do it? I never sign in using my facebook profile for any site other than facebook

 

[Mister CIA]

This is exactly what Facebook is doing. Your Facebook profile is becoming your defacto login everywhere, online and in mobile apps. With mobile and cloud the idea of what the "Internet" is is being blurred. The virtual and real worlds come closer together, Facebook is positioning themselves to be your primary 'user account'.

Yeah, I think it's Facebook versus Google for that in the immediate future.Stuff like Gmail, Google docs, Google music, Google reader, Google maps, and so on (all of which look nicely positioned for the transfer from PCs to mobile) . . . Google is obviously the default login for all of those things.

But for non-Google sites, to the extent they're participating in a single-account-login thingy, logging in with your facebook account seems like a fairly common option.

but how many people do it? I never sign in using my facebook profile for any site other than facebook

Not sure if this is the same thing but it pisses me off when I click on a player link at MFL and there's my FB profile staring me in the face inviting me to comment on Joe Football Player. As bad as the shark pool can be at times it's infinitely better to discuss players there. Facebook is a square peg.

 

[Riversco]

The most likely thing to kill Facebook is the smartphone. I think what may happen is Facebook-style features will be integrated into smartphone hardware such that using Facebook becomes redundant.

 

[lumpy19]

I think facebook will outlast twitter. Exactly when it will die is a fascinating question. I'd give it at least five more good years . . . but things move so fast, who knows?

It will die when there is a massive security breach, which will probably happen eventually.

What could be the security breach? I'm not all that familiar with facebook, do they store CC information? I thought the whole point of facebook was to share everything.

 

[Ilov80s]

I think facebook will outlast twitter. Exactly when it will die is a fascinating question. I'd give it at least five more good years . . . but things move so fast, who knows?

It will die when there is a massive security breach, which will probably happen eventually.

What could be the security breach? I'm not all that familiar with facebook, do they store CC information? I thought the whole point of facebook was to share everything.

Yeah, there isn't really much in the way of security there since anything you put on FB becomes the property of FB.

 

[goonsquad]

The most likely thing to kill Facebook is the smartphone. I think what may happen is Facebook-style features will be integrated into smartphone hardware such that using Facebook becomes redundant.

How so? Problem Facebook is already the gold standard and they have open API's for every mobile platform. Why would a user want to segregate themselves from interacting with their friends on other mobile platforms when everyone is already on Facebook and all mobile OS's can integrate Facebook functionality? For Example, Apple has 200 million iOS users. They have accounts for each person already made in iTunes. They could easily create a social system for those user accounts and integrate them across all iOS devices. Problem is, what is the benefit to the user when it would exclude their friends that use Android, Blackberry or Windows Mobile? Facebook is platform independent in this regard. Their API work across OS's. And everybody is already using it, they already have their friend network established.

 

[zamboni]

I don't see FB going anywhere anytime soon. People have a lot of emotional ties to it - that goes a long way. While the barriers to entry to replicate the FB concept aren't high, the brand/product loyalty is extremely high.

All that said, I can see a saturation point for FB - if it hasn't happened already - such that usage starts to wane. I think we are seeing a similar thing with LinkedIn, where it was really hot, but the usefulness has somewhat diminished as people get linked to more and more unaffiliated people.

FB will certainly challenged to continue to morph itself to avoid the same fate. We'll see how long Zuckerberg keeps at it.

 

[belljr]

My whole issue with this move of facebook integration, etc, is some sites/places assume you have facebook and the only way to login is using facebook. Listen I have no issues if you use facebook, that's something you enjoy whatever, but alienating potential customers or even current customers because they don't have it is a bad move imo.

 

[RUSF18]

I don't see FB going anywhere anytime soon. People have a lot of emotional ties to it - that goes a long way. While the barriers to entry to replicate the FB concept aren't high, the brand/product loyalty is extremely high.All that said, I can see a saturation point for FB - if it hasn't happened already - such that usage starts to wane. I think we are seeing a similar thing with LinkedIn, where it was really hot, but the usefulness has somewhat diminished as people get linked to more and more unaffiliated people.FB will certainly challenged to continue to morph itself to avoid the same fate. We'll see how long Zuckerberg keeps at it.

Wouldn't you say that Facebook was one thing that diminished the usefulness of LinkedIn?

 

[goonsquad]

I don't see FB going anywhere anytime soon. People have a lot of emotional ties to it - that goes a long way. While the barriers to entry to replicate the FB concept aren't high, the brand/product loyalty is extremely high.

All that said, I can see a saturation point for FB - if it hasn't happened already - such that usage starts to wane. I think we are seeing a similar thing with LinkedIn, where it was really hot, but the usefulness has somewhat diminished as people get linked to more and more unaffiliated people.

FB will certainly challenged to continue to morph itself to avoid the same fate. We'll see how long Zuckerberg keeps at it.

The biggest obstacle for a competitor is simply the fact that a social network is useless without a massive user base. Simply replicating Facebook is a losing proposition, you need to give people something that Facebook simply cannot offer. It would require a mass exodus from one platform to another, which I don't see happening without some underlying shift in the technology landscape. I don't see a saturation point on the horizon because there will always be new generations of kids creating accounts. As technology becomes more readily available to the masses new users will be able to join in as well. They may slow down form their hyper growth mode but I see them continually growing moving forward.

 

[zamboni]

I don't see FB going anywhere anytime soon. People have a lot of emotional ties to it - that goes a long way. While the barriers to entry to replicate the FB concept aren't high, the brand/product loyalty is extremely high.All that said, I can see a saturation point for FB - if it hasn't happened already - such that usage starts to wane. I think we are seeing a similar thing with LinkedIn, where it was really hot, but the usefulness has somewhat diminished as people get linked to more and more unaffiliated people.FB will certainly challenged to continue to morph itself to avoid the same fate. We'll see how long Zuckerberg keeps at it.

Wouldn't you say that Facebook was one thing that diminished the usefulness of LinkedIn?

Maybe a little, but I don't think too much. FB and LinkedIn are really for different purposes - social and networking/business, respectively. As mentioned, I think LI has become saturated since it seems people are connected to so many people that it tends to lose some of its effectiveness. Plus the fact that the job market is a *bit* better than a few years ago, LinkedIn probably isn't used as much as when companies were laying off people left and right.

 

[zamboni]

I don't see a saturation point on the horizon because there will always be new generations of kids creating accounts. As technology becomes more readily available to the masses new users will be able to join in as well. They may slow down form their hyper growth mode but I see them continually growing moving forward.

True - there will be more kids added, but it seems that, at least among my circle, is that existing users don't go on or post as much as when it first became big. Like everyone else, it gets a bit old after awhile.

 

[Ilov80s]

I don't see a saturation point on the horizon because there will always be new generations of kids creating accounts. As technology becomes more readily available to the masses new users will be able to join in as well. They may slow down form their hyper growth mode but I see them continually growing moving forward.

True - there will be more kids added, but it seems that, at least among my circle, is that existing users don't go on or post as much as when it first became big. Like everyone else, it gets a bit old after awhile.

You and your circle are also are getting older.

 

[zamboni]

I don't see a saturation point on the horizon because there will always be new generations of kids creating accounts. As technology becomes more readily available to the masses new users will be able to join in as well. They may slow down form their hyper growth mode but I see them continually growing moving forward.

True - there will be more kids added, but it seems that, at least among my circle, is that existing users don't go on or post as much as when it first became big. Like everyone else, it gets a bit old after awhile.

You and your circle are also are getting older.

Touche, but I hear it from some of the whippersnappers, too.

 

[Bogart]

My whole issue with this move of facebook integration, etc, is some sites/places assume you have facebook and the only way to login is using facebook. Listen I have no issues if you use facebook, that's something you enjoy whatever, but alienating potential customers or even current customers because they don't have it is a bad move imo.

Honestly, new sites and startups really don't care about if you or I have issues with using FB to sign up for their site. Chances are, those that have issues are going to try and move on to the next site/startup. They are completely focused on the 600 million FB sheep users, and if they can make their site easier to use with the help of FB, that is what they are going to do. Getting inside that walled garden and getting just a few crumbs from the table are all the startups are looking for now. Best case situation, they attract 1% of the FB user base. Super best case, FB buys them up and moves them into the family.

 

[goonsquad]

My whole issue with this move of facebook integration, etc, is some sites/places assume you have facebook and the only way to login is using facebook. Listen I have no issues if you use facebook, that's something you enjoy whatever, but alienating potential customers or even current customers because they don't have it is a bad move imo.

Honestly, new sites and startups really don't care about if you or I have issues with using FB to sign up for their site. Chances are, those that have issues are going to try and move on to the next site/startup. They are completely focused on the 600 million FB sheep users, and if they can make their site easier to use with the help of FB, that is what they are going to do. Getting inside that walled garden and getting just a few crumbs from the table are all the startups are looking for now. Best case situation, they attract 1% of the FB user base. Super best case, FB buys them up and moves them into the family.

It's still bad UI and an unacceptable oversight from a design/usability perspective.

 

[E-Z Glider]

I don't see a saturation point on the horizon because there will always be new generations of kids creating accounts. As technology becomes more readily available to the masses new users will be able to join in as well. They may slow down form their hyper growth mode but I see them continually growing moving forward.

True - there will be more kids added, but it seems that, at least among my circle, is that existing users don't go on or post as much as when it first became big. Like everyone else, it gets a bit old after awhile.

I agree with this. The other thing I notice is that the most entertaining people to follow are always the really wacky ones and they are more likely to quit all at once because someone (usually S/O) makes them stop because of their inappropriate behavior. The less wackiness, the less likely I am to continue following.

 

[RUSF18]

Coincidentally, I was just having lunch in Bryant Park, and got handed a card by a guy advertising a brand new social networking site, lifegunk.com

Yeah, not sure FB has anything to worry about.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

How long facebook will last is entirely up to the product directors. Myspace could have stayed relevant, but it became associated with horrible glitter designs and pedophilia. If Facebook continues to incorporate new technology and features and doesn't completely blow it with regards to peoples privacy concerns, they could be around a very long time. If all the owners cash out soon and they hire a bunch of nimrods, they could dry up in 3 or 4 years.

BobbyLane: I don't see that as a "doh" at all. IMO you're being very risky to leave that much money on the table after the IPO and your insider trade freeze has expired. For every Google or Apple or Amazon employee who's pissedoff that they cashed out too early, just as many or more ex- Worldcom, theGlobe and Infospace employees who are now in padding room rocking back and forth thinking about the hundreds of thousands of dollars they wiped away waiting for even higher stock numbers.

Dr Krentist: Why do you think Groupon is bad for small businesses? I know a couple friends who own small businesses who have really gained a customer base after Groupon offerings.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

I think facebook will outlast twitter. Exactly when it will die is a fascinating question. I'd give it at least five more good years . . . but things move so fast, who knows?

It will die when there is a massive security breach, which will probably happen eventually.

What could be the security breach? I'm not all that familiar with facebook, do they store CC information? I thought the whole point of facebook was to share everything.

Yeah, there isn't really much in the way of security there since anything you put on FB becomes the property of FB.

If someone were serious about defeating FB then privacy and security is the place to focus. There has been a huge backlash against FB yet over privacy but it's coming and the first site to make it a priority will do well.

 

[Christo]

I think facebook will outlast twitter. Exactly when it will die is a fascinating question. I'd give it at least five more good years . . . but things move so fast, who knows?

It will die when there is a massive security breach, which will probably happen eventually.

What could be the security breach? I'm not all that familiar with facebook, do they store CC information? I thought the whole point of facebook was to share everything.

Yeah, there isn't really much in the way of security there since anything you put on FB becomes the property of FB.

That only applies to intellectual property not your personal information.

 

[Dentist]

Dr Krentist: Why do you think Groupon is bad for small businesses? I know a couple friends who own small businesses who have really gained a customer base after Groupon offerings.

i could be off basis, but what i'm seeing/hearing about groupon is that it is creating a new culture of deal-shoppers while simultaneously devaluing a company's product/service regular price.I've seen/heard of people only going out to eat where they have their groupon to. I've heard of people just picking a new dentist everytime one offers a groupon.Some of these "trends" I see popping up: "extreme couponing, grouponing, etc." just seem bad in a macro sense.I understand that in the short term while the economy is still very very slowly recovering that in order to keep their doors open that stores, restaurants, etc... feel like they have to discount in order to drive traffic.Lots of local restaurants are doing extended happy hours, lowering prices, etc. Maybe this works in retail and in the restaurant/bar field.I personally think groupon and what not are creating deal-seeker customers who won't be back until there are more deals to be had. So I feel like it's an instance of cutting off the nose to spite the face. That they are addressing short term problems with deals and discounting in the interest of creating a customer who will come back and pay full price... but that there's not going to be a high % of customers that are ultimately converted over to a full price customer.Basically I feel like that if there is a full economic recovery and things are robust that people still aren't going to be willing to pay full price for the items they tried and liked. "Sure, I enjoyed that delicious steak I got at *insert local restaurant here * for $10, but I don't think it would taste as good for $20... i'll wait for another groupon"and I don't blame the customer... i have a nice place near me that had a juicy happy hour.. i like it and i go to it for that. I couldn't stomach going there outside of happy hour though... drink prices are too damn high at full price.

 

[Abraham]

Dr Krentist: Why do you think Groupon is bad for small businesses? I know a couple friends who own small businesses who have really gained a customer base after Groupon offerings.

I think your friends are the exception. Obviously the satisfied customers aren't as vocal as those that had a negative experience, but I'd say the "that was terrible for my business" stories outnumber the successes by 3 to 1 in the blogosphere. Maybe more.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Dr Krentist: Why do you think Groupon is bad for small businesses? I know a couple friends who own small businesses who have really gained a customer base after Groupon offerings.

i could be off basis, but what i'm seeing/hearing about groupon is that it is creating a new culture of deal-shoppers while simultaneously devaluing a company's product/service regular price.I've seen/heard of people only going out to eat where they have their groupon to. I've heard of people just picking a new dentist everytime one offers a groupon.Some of these "trends" I see popping up: "extreme couponing, grouponing, etc." just seem bad in a macro sense.

You are absolutely right it does devalue a business. Once people get a deal they hate paying full price. They are always looking for the next deal.I don't think groupon is good for business in the long run.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Wouldn't you say that Facebook was one thing that diminished the usefulness of LinkedIn?

Why do you think this?I don't think facebook and linkedin have that much in common really. Linkedin is a much more useful site than facebook really but it's hard to compare the two because they serve such different purposes.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

I think facebook will outlast twitter. Exactly when it will die is a fascinating question. I'd give it at least five more good years . . . but things move so fast, who knows?

It will die when there is a massive security breach, which will probably happen eventually.

What could be the security breach? I'm not all that familiar with facebook, do they store CC information? I thought the whole point of facebook was to share everything.

Yeah, there isn't really much in the way of security there since anything you put on FB becomes the property of FB.

I disagree with this completely. For most people, their facebook site is open to their network only, it is not available for the world to see. Those pictures of you doing a kegstand in college are nice for your friends to have a laugh at but not one you want a future employer to look at.I know it's hard to imagine happening but I do think at some point there will be a security breach where anyone can access your facebook profile. And this will turn people off to it.I also believe that all this "sharing" that we do on the internet is a short time phenomena. I think in 20 years we are going to wonder why we we so laid back in putting ourselves all over the internet. Privacy is going to come back into play in a major way at some point, that I am convinced of.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Facebook was the most visited site in the world last year, even over Google. It's going to take a LOT to take it down.

 

[urbanhack]

How long facebook will last is entirely up to the product directors. Myspace could have stayed relevant, but it became associated with horrible glitter designs and pedophilia. If Facebook continues to incorporate new technology and features and doesn't completely blow it with regards to peoples privacy concerns, they could be around a very long time. If all the owners cash out soon and they hire a bunch of nimrods, they could dry up in 3 or 4 years.

Myspace was completely open-ended and customizable that it started looking like ####. Facebook has a structure that maintains a consistent look and feel so they have more control. I wish it was a bit more customizable, but whatever.The other big thing about Facebook is that it is open-ended allowing other companies to write interfaces and custom create tabs. Companies like Buddy Media only exist because of Facebook. Now there are dozens, if not hundreds of companies that exist only because of FB.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I'm 100% sure Twitter is here to stay. It can be a valuable source of information.

But what about Facebook? Is it still a novelty that people will get sick of sooner or later?

Usually the first clue it will not last.

WUPHF

Did anyone ever invent a digital rape whistle?

 

[Abraham]

Facebook was the most visited site in the world last year, even over Google. It's going to take a LOT to take it down.

We're getting stupider as people.

 

[Mister CIA]

How long facebook will last is entirely up to the product directors. Myspace could have stayed relevant, but it became associated with horrible glitter designs and pedophilia. If Facebook continues to incorporate new technology and features and doesn't completely blow it with regards to peoples privacy concerns, they could be around a very long time. If all the owners cash out soon and they hire a bunch of nimrods, they could dry up in 3 or 4 years.

Myspace was completely open-ended and customizable that it started looking like ####. Facebook has a structure that maintains a consistent look and feel so they have more control. I wish it was a bit more customizable, but whatever.The other big thing about Facebook is that it is open-ended allowing other companies to write interfaces and custom create tabs. Companies like Buddy Media only exist because of Facebook. Now there are dozens, if not hundreds of companies that exist only because of FB.

If you don't mind sparing me the effort to Google it, what is Buddy Media? I'm trying to find examples of what makes Facebook viable and interesting for the long haul.

 

[flapgreen]

If it dies, I will die.

 

[Dentist]

We're getting stupider as people.

Idiocracy the movie is a satire and is done in such a way that it is over-the-top, but the overall message is true.As the successful and intelligent continue not to breed and the poor and stupid continue to breed in droves, we are definitely experiencing anti-darwinism at its finest.My sister and bro-in-law are both doctors and extremely intelligent. They have the money and genes to pump out six successful kids. They aren't going to have any because they want to travel the world, enjoy life, and not have to deal with kids. I respect that, but society could benefit from their offspring.Meanwhile some dumb poor hicks are popping out like 4-5 welfare kids that have low odds at being productive citizens.A less sensationalized form of idiocracy could definitely happen.

 

[RUSF18]

Wouldn't you say that Facebook was one thing that diminished the usefulness of LinkedIn?

Why do you think this?I don't think facebook and linkedin have that much in common really. Linkedin is a much more useful site than facebook really but it's hard to compare the two because they serve such different purposes.

I think Linkedin has suffered from the "facebook effect" of people going on there and connecting with every person they know. They go on, see a guy they went to high school with, connect with him and join his network, do the same for the cousin of a girl they dated for 6 months, and on and on. All of a sudden, their network is monstrous and loses the main goal of developing those business relationships. I could be vastly overstating the amount of people who use it for this, but in going down some of my contacts on there, it seems to be pretty prevalent.

 

[roadkill1292]

If it dies, I will die.

So how do you use it? And doncha think it will just be replaced by something better (for those who like that kind of stuff)?

 

[Ilov80s]

We're getting stupider as people.

Idiocracy the movie is a satire and is done in such a way that it is over-the-top, but the overall message is true.As the successful and intelligent continue not to breed and the poor and stupid continue to breed in droves, we are definitely experiencing anti-darwinism at its finest.My sister and bro-in-law are both doctors and extremely intelligent. They have the money and genes to pump out six successful kids. They aren't going to have any because they want to travel the world, enjoy life, and not have to deal with kids. I respect that, but society could benefit from their offspring.Meanwhile some dumb poor hicks are popping out like 4-5 welfare kids that have low odds at being productive citizens.A less sensationalized form of idiocracy could definitely happen.

In Idiocracy there were no intelligent people. Everyone- even the leaders of politics and industry were stupid. Even if this anecdotal observation you have made is accurate, it ignores the fact that we are also are producing more college graduates than any point in history and that there the numbers of scientists, doctors, engineers, and lawyers keeps growing. There is this incredibly advanced higher class made up of the most educated advanced people in human history.

 

[belljr]

Wouldn't you say that Facebook was one thing that diminished the usefulness of LinkedIn?

Why do you think this?I don't think facebook and linkedin have that much in common really. Linkedin is a much more useful site than facebook really but it's hard to compare the two because they serve such different purposes.

I think Linkedin has suffered from the "facebook effect" of people going on there and connecting with every person they know. They go on, see a guy they went to high school with, connect with him and join his network, do the same for the cousin of a girl they dated for 6 months, and on and on. All of a sudden, their network is monstrous and loses the main goal of developing those business relationships. I could be vastly overstating the amount of people who use it for this, but in going down some of my contacts on there, it seems to be pretty prevalent.

That or unemployed people are getting desperate. I am not on linkedin and was sent a linkedin request from a guy I've never met because he had my email address from my buddies pool he runs.Freaking people...Almost as bad as getting someones number off a AIDS walk list.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Wouldn't you say that Facebook was one thing that diminished the usefulness of LinkedIn?

Why do you think this?I don't think facebook and linkedin have that much in common really. Linkedin is a much more useful site than facebook really but it's hard to compare the two because they serve such different purposes.

I think Linkedin has suffered from the "facebook effect" of people going on there and connecting with every person they know. They go on, see a guy they went to high school with, connect with him and join his network, do the same for the cousin of a girl they dated for 6 months, and on and on. All of a sudden, their network is monstrous and loses the main goal of developing those business relationships. I could be vastly overstating the amount of people who use it for this, but in going down some of my contacts on there, it seems to be pretty prevalent.

If you are using Linkedin to find a job, I'd say it's pretty smart to do this. You never know who is going to be connected to someone at a company you want to be hired at. Most people find jobs by networking, by knowing people. Few people find jobs cold unless they are so highly skilled that they are in demand.I wouldn't fill my linkedin with people that wouldn't give me a good reference but you should use everyone that is useful to you in this job market.

 

[Maelstrom]

doh!

Within the Industry, an Urge to Cash Out

I think the people looking to cash out are actually the smart ones. Once Facebook goes public, it will likely have a spike and then an immediate fall as the people that hadn't cashed out take their share.Also, it does seem like Facebook growth is slowing a little, but I don't think it will stop growing until something/someone does disrupt them. I do think it will become more of a commodity or utility and less of a "sensation" though.

 

[Gachi]

I don't have a twitter, but isn't it just like facebook? The only difference is that everything goes away after the day is over? You can "follow" celebrities just like you can "like" them on facebook. I just can't see facebook going anywhere, it's nice and simple and I can keep in contact with all my family and friends. I have several family members and friends who are oversees or in different states, and facebook allows me to keep in contact with all of them. Myspace was always a joke, it used to piss me off when I used to go to people's page and it would be loaded with a bunch of glittery crap, videos, slide shows, etc. It was a desperate attempt to compete when myspace added a news feed, which is very inferior to facebook's. I've always thought of myspace as a place for high school kids, and facebook for college kids. That's how it started off, and I didn't get a facebook account until I started college.

 

[Riversco]

The most likely thing to kill Facebook is the smartphone. I think what may happen is Facebook-style features will be integrated into smartphone hardware such that using Facebook becomes redundant.

How so? Problem Facebook is already the gold standard and they have open API's for every mobile platform. Why would a user want to segregate themselves from interacting with their friends on other mobile platforms when everyone is already on Facebook and all mobile OS's can integrate Facebook functionality? For Example, Apple has 200 million iOS users. They have accounts for each person already made in iTunes. They could easily create a social system for those user accounts and integrate them across all iOS devices. Problem is, what is the benefit to the user when it would exclude their friends that use Android, Blackberry or Windows Mobile? Facebook is platform independent in this regard. Their API work across OS's. And everybody is already using it, they already have their friend network established.

I've seen it happen many times before. Someone creates an awesome piece of software that is very popular. Eventually, the people who produce the hardware create their own version directly embedded in the hardware, making the software redundant. People migrate to the hardware version because it eliminates a step in some way. The people who design the hardware can make it so that to use facebook, you have to turn on the smartphone and open the browser and go to facebook, but if you use the hardware-version facebook clone, you just push a special button on the side of the smartphone and it opens right up in a second. They can make it relatively painful for people to use Facebook, especially if Facebook doesn't control the smartphone hardware. It will slowly erode into Facebook's market share, eventually hit critical mass, and become the new standard.If I remember correctly, this was how IE destroyed Netscape. Netscape used to be the dominant in the web browser wars. But then Windows started bundling IE directly with Windows. It meant users had to take an extra of finding Netscape software on the web, downloading it, and installing it, and hoping it works., It was an extra step that people didn't want to take when IE was right there.

 

[goonsquad]

The most likely thing to kill Facebook is the smartphone. I think what may happen is Facebook-style features will be integrated into smartphone hardware such that using Facebook becomes redundant.

How so? Problem Facebook is already the gold standard and they have open API's for every mobile platform. Why would a user want to segregate themselves from interacting with their friends on other mobile platforms when everyone is already on Facebook and all mobile OS's can integrate Facebook functionality? For Example, Apple has 200 million iOS users. They have accounts for each person already made in iTunes. They could easily create a social system for those user accounts and integrate them across all iOS devices. Problem is, what is the benefit to the user when it would exclude their friends that use Android, Blackberry or Windows Mobile? Facebook is platform independent in this regard. Their API work across OS's. And everybody is already using it, they already have their friend network established.

I've seen it happen many times before. Someone creates an awesome piece of software that is very popular. Eventually, the people who produce the hardware create their own version directly embedded in the hardware, making the software redundant. People migrate to the hardware version because it eliminates a step in some way. The people who design the hardware can make it so that to use facebook, you have to turn on the smartphone and open the browser and go to facebook, but if you use the hardware-version facebook clone, you just push a special button on the side of the smartphone and it opens right up in a second. They can make it relatively painful for people to use Facebook, especially if Facebook doesn't control the smartphone hardware. It will slowly erode into Facebook's market share, eventually hit critical mass, and become the new standard.If I remember correctly, this was how IE destroyed Netscape. Netscape used to be the dominant in the web browser wars. But then Windows started bundling IE directly with Windows. It meant users had to take an extra of finding Netscape software on the web, downloading it, and installing it, and hoping it works., It was an extra step that people didn't want to take when IE was right there.

I don't see it playing out like that. Facebook has done a great job moving forward with mobile platforms. They have apps for every system that put users one click away from their network. They have allowed other apps to integrate Facebook services. They have made your Facebook account your universal passport for log-ins. Social media in general and Facebook especially are a different breed of software. There is very little pain in switching browsers. To switch social networks, you need all of your extended network to make the move with you. Even then, you didn't address how your "hardware-based" social software overcomes the splitting of their user base. Facebook is available on every platform. That alone kills your prediction of the future, unless you see a Microsoft-level monopoly happening in mobile in the near future. Personally I don't see anybody taking 90% market share in the mobile arena.

 

[Riversco]

To switch social networks, you need all of your extended network to make the move with you.

That's why I said it would slowly erode into Facebook's market share until it reached critical mass. It won't all happen in one night because of established networks. But ease-of-use trumps established networks.