What If Social Networks Just Aren’t Profitable?
powazek.com
powazek.com
Perhaps a better question (and a more interesting debate) is whether a social network can ever keep up with users and their changing tastes. Myspace was once dominant, but Facebook quickly destroyed it. Digg was once dominant, but Reddit supplanted it. Looking back at the history of the web, there seems to be a point where social networks either fall out of relevance (or muck up a good thing).
Not sure what the answer is to that question...If you look at Myspace, you could argue they died because they failed to change. If you look at Digg, you could just as easily argue that they died because they changed. So, I'd argue that social networks need to stay half a step ahead of their users' tastes to stay profitable. I'm not sure that's possible, so social networks need to diversify (likely away from pure social networking) to stay profitable.
A lot of people like me are determined to popularize open/p2p, distributed or decentralized social networks.
Technically, we're lunch cutting the for-profit networks. But I think both can coexist. However, if open/free networks come to dominate, closed platforms will diminish in popularity.
Search: "Diaspora", "distributed social network"
Is social software fundamentally unprofitable? I think the answer has to be no. Even the clumsy monetization of facebook today shows a healthy profit, even if it is orders of magnitude below the fevered expectations of the market. More so, as running high user count services becomes cheaper due to advances in technology social software will merely become easier and easier to profit from.