On what?
On what?
Its the same scenario we saw with AIM in the instant messaging space. Lots of people were already on AIM (thanks to having AOL accounts), making AIM an attractive choice for new users. The trend was only broken when the AIM protocol (as well as those of other proprietary chat networks) was broken, allowing multi-protocol chat clients to bridge the gap between networks.
We're already seeing the same thing with social networks. Many clients support both Facebook and Twitter, allowing users to transparently bridge the gap between the two largest social media networks on the Internet.
My problem is that is not a real thing which can be monopolized. I promise I'm not being (intentionally) obtuse here. I don't understand which piece of an online offering requires Facebook. Maybe an example would help me.