Facebook is for grandparents: What we need in a next-gen social network
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
Hollywood knows how this works, and they do not incorporate or IPO each individual TV show: instead they incorporate studios, that produce many different shows. Facebook is forced into this model too by reality, thus they bought Instagram, and tried to buy Snapchat. Those shows will also have a limited lifetime. Facebook will fail, because they do not recognize that they are in the entertainment business and they will cling to their one single show.
Someone needs to create a non-gaming software studio, that is tooled to make or to buy Instagrams for less than $1bn, knowing that they constantly need to retire the old shows and come up with the new ones.
You can just about list on one hand every decade, the number of shows that last more than five years and bring in big ratings (audience / users). Shows like Friends, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Roseanne, Mash, etc.
Hit TV shows are extraordinarily difficult to 'manufacture.' Out of thousands proposed and scripted by writers, one or two per year are hits if you're lucky. Out of those, a few survive five or seven years.
And that's all true even with the huge built-in audiences that companies such as NBC, ABC, CBS have that show up every night waiting to watch content. There aren't 100,000 other apps to compete with, just a few major deliverers of TV shows / networks; and the failure rate is still that high.
I think that it would be more correct to say the social networks that have failed have not had the kind of classical design that could make them long-term parts of society, unlike, say, Shakespeare. But then, that is a fairly trivial observation too. Of course social networks that have failed have lacked the qualities that could make them not fail.
Facebook needs to do the same if they want to survive. They need to stop being a social networking site, and be a social networking platform, that others build from. Facebook the site, should be one site of many using that platform. I should be able to develop a social networking site built from the Facebook platform, to compete with the Facebook site. Then when my site gets old, or the Facebook site gets old, new sites emerge, and build off the data from the existing platform. This way, it lives on. However, this will never happen, and Facebook will die.
This is the idea behind 'Indie Web' [1] and even though it is harder at first it is the simplest long-term solution. Domain names are cheap, hosting is cheap, and publishing isn't very difficult.
Reddit revolves around people finding interesting content and providing it to others to be consumed with some commentary on the side.
I'm not sure how they're comparable. Sure, reddit has a community aspect, but it's really just a side dish compared to the content (links).
Many of the subreddits (e.g. the ones dedicated to cities or schools) are far more about the community than the content.
Maybe if you stick to the default subreddits that are composed entirely of memes.
The main reason that I use Reddit is for the discussion; I highly, highly doubt that you're going to find /r/askscience-calibre conversations on Facebook.
The fact that one effect of social networks is to entertain people, and the fact that TV shows also have the effect of entertaining people, does not imply social networks are therefore bound to the rules/generalizations of TV shows.
No, but he made an argument. You have to judge it. Not everything in life is settled with "evidence".
Please retort, provide counter-arguments or share your point.
The fact that one effect of social networks is to entertain people, and the fact that TV shows also have the effect of entertaining people, does not imply social networks are therefore bound to the rules/generalizations of TV shows.
You are arguing over the logic of an analogy, but what about sharing your point of view?
My experience is unfortunately anecdotal, but I'd say the energy you have in an early stage startup that is focused on building a good product is difficult to replicate, and without this, I believe competing against the Instagrams and the Facebooks is no easy task.
The challenge is to get the right features sho that the users provide the content that keeps their friends and connections coming back.
Those with the broadest appeal last longer, some never get off the ground, others shine brightly and then fade.
And that means they''re headed into life phases where they buy high profit goods and services like stroller systems and financial services. And old folks like grandpa? Well he's buying pharmaceuticals and taking cruises.
Isn't this what Google+ has been trying to do from the start?
All this talk of "products" seems to miss the root problem with these social networks - they aren't networks. They are centralized databases that are designed that way not for the benefit of the users but as means of simplifying the profit model. Because they all share that same inherent design, they will all share the same fate.
The next generation in social networks will be something that is actually a network, until then all that's really going on is "rearranging deckchairs on the titanic."
This article makes some interesting points and, perhaps, the next generation will incorporate some of these ideas. But, it feels like a modest iteration over the current state of affairs. And, much like the current landscape (FB, Vine, Instagram, SnapChat, etc), the article feels fragmented. It consists of a lot of related ideas, but there's no real cohesion or unifying theme.
Ala Instagram, Twitter, Tumblr, Vine, Pinterest, Path, OKCupid, Github, etc...
it's super cool!
An interesting idea, but won't that encourage spam?
The whole point of social networks is to be social with people you enjoy. As soon as you provide financial incentive, then things get skewed.
Maybe there's a model or variation under which this could work. But, simply allowing people to monetize interactions, the stuff they share, etc. will pervert the incentive and devalue the platform.
I would go so far as to say that what is required is something that discourages financial gain. Money perverts social relationships. Long before the internet people were saying things like "never lend money to a friend because you won't be friends any more." The green card lawyers were among the first to abuse the net for financial gain and that model of spam has gone on to be an enormous drag on the utility of the net.
Do I personally want another one? Well not me, but other people might.
Does anyone need another one? I highly highly doubt it.
A truly open social graph, distributed so it isn't controlled by a single entity, is a game changer. It lowers the barriers to vertical oriented social networks, which wouldn't have the barrier of reconstructing every user's social graph.
The trick is the transition. It's like we are stuck in a local maximum. Once we move to distributed social graphs we are obviously better, but I can't imagine how this transition would occur, other than Facebook itself having an amazingly long term vision and going all in with this vision. There's a lot to be gained from being the industry leader for 50 years instead of monopolist for 10...
I rather view the internet as a party where everyone is invited. The social networks are the loud attention seekers yelling "look at how cool we are". People are wow'd and sucked in. The problem is, it's a keg party and the only way they've been able to monetize is to sell ads at their party. Once the ads go up, the venue is no longer cool and the party moves to a new venue.
Of course, there are other types of parties and my prediction is that quality is going to trump quantity in future networks. Who wants a keg party that sells advertising when the quality of the people I meet at a cocktail party could lead to new opportunities without advertising?
The next wave will build on social and actually generate real value. Therefore, it'll have a new name and it won't be Social 2.0 It'll be something entirely new that addresses that value.
There are many social networks who aren't tailored to the older generation, so there's a bit of a problem there: My mom has no interest in Twitter. That's why I like attempts like togethera.com, I think there are plenty of alternatives for "the social network we think we want", but not enough for the ones we actually would find useful. "Faster horse", etc.
Which is beside the point he makes.
You can always communicate with your grantparents on FB.
Plus, on the scheme he presents, you can just make a personal profile for communication with your extended family and grandparents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5630449
With the mobile number as identifier, mobile is the next Facebook.
I always wonder what happens to a user base of such a website once it gets older and crosses the magic line - in this example, if maximum of the user distribution gets older than 30.