There's a long history of specialized communication apps gradually expanding as time goes on:
- At first, Snapchat was all about disappearing photos sent directly to a single person. Then they added 24 hour long stories which can be seen by multiple people. Then they added one on one text chat. Now they're adding group chat.
- Instagram was originally for small, square resolution photos with an artsy filter. Then they bumped the photo resolution and allowed non-square photos. Then they added videos. Then they added a text DM system. Then they added group chats.
- First Twitter was for short, public, text only messages. Then they added photos and videos. Then they added private messages.
etc, etc... (my ordering on some of those might be wrong, but you get the idea)
It almost seems inevitable that whatever specific thing that differentiates a communication platform will gradually be eroded away until it resembles all the others.
Facebook (and Instagram) and Snapchat have both transformed from their original incarnations, in ways that have improved the companies' valuation, but have not always improved the experience of users. It seems every single social network is trending towards feature parity with each other (...) Some (important) differences remain, but from an observer time-travelling forward from 2012, the social networks of today would appear nearly interchangeable.
And [2]:
(...) I can't help but feel that value is paradoxically lost (for the user) once everyone iterates themselves into equivalence. Network effect advantages become almost irrelevant when everyone maintains an equally split presence. And if value is lost for the user, their platform loyalty will plummet.
Facebook and Snapchat will begin to be perceived as a 'utility' (something that has already happened to Twitter), meaning, we as a society all expect these functions of social networking and messaging to be fulfilled by a provider, but the exact provider is no longer relevant. Pressures to maintain a positive balance sheet will lead to a proliferation of ads.
This will leave room for new upstarts to target a niche they can serve better than the incumbents, and lure engagement away. They will use VC money to fund their effort and offer ad-free, carefully-focused refuges away from the big networks. But the incumbents have so much money, they will all get bought out in the end (...)
I see analogues to the churn of free image hosts -- new one starts up because all the old ones are full of ads; introduces ads a few years later because they can't pay the bills. The cycle continues.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083820 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083903