I'll simply let you have the last word on all of these threads since I'm not worth arguing on it. You're obviously much more qualified, and I unequivically accept your summary judgement that Facebook is superior to everything else ever.
Sorry.
I'll simply let you have the last word on all of these threads since I'm not worth arguing on it. You're obviously much more qualified, and I unequivically accept your summary judgement that Facebook is superior to everything else ever.
Sorry.
If you don't see a reply button (I think that's a glitch in the site; happens to me all the time), then you click the "link" button up top, next to "parent". That'll give you a box in which to reply.
I'll apologize for the abruptness of my last comment to you. Hopefully you'll understand there was a reason behind it, and that reason is: This debate springs up once a month, and every time somebody new comes up saying Facebook is like MySpace is like Friendster, and every time I feel the need to explain why they're wrong, and it takes an hour and leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I'm a bit of a Facebook fan, and I figure that since most HN users aren't I might as well step in and shout my things.
If you'd like to, I can craft a response to you that addresses that one point specifically. As it is, I spent a good twenty minutes looking for previous things I've said in the hopes that you can get the gist of my argument, and hopefully respond in a non-arsewipe way that leads to fun conversation that leads to us each enjoying the sight of our respective names in future debates.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=513550
In 2005 I was working on the quality assurance team for a social network start-up with a pretty neat set of technologies. Part of my goal was to get other people to move off MySpace. The site I was with, Zoints, had a cleaner design, more features, and some parts of it were much more intuitive. People refused to switch. They had friends on MySpace, and they had nothing to gain from switching. Social networks are all about the users, and they were in one basket.
This is important not just as a lesson of how hard it is to make people switch, but of how good Facebook is. Everybody had a MySpace, but they switched over to Facebook anyway. By the time Facebook let high schoolers register, they had 85% of all college students as active users, and half of those were active daily. Now I would suspect it has more than just 85% of all high schoolers registered, and it's leaking down to middle school registration. People at work use it a lot, and as a result entire families are signing up.
Many people here don't ask themselves just how that happened, which is damn shortsighted. I mean, my mother signed up. My grandfather signed up. He comments on my Facebook statuses. My young cousin got an account. And it's not like Twitter, where people want to "tap into a network". It's not like getting a blog. Simply put, Facebook keeps people in contact better than any other application does. It provides an incredible interface. People who know nothing about tech just "get it". They figure out how to write photos and write notes and update statuses and make friends. It's that easy. It's so easy, and so universal, that middle schoolers get them, not just to be cool, but to talk to other kids. Older family members get them to talk to their relatives. My mother currently has a network of 39 friends, including mothers in the neighborhood and friends at work. That's pretty damn impressive.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=255532
Facebook becomes just a point for those few times you want to plan things way in advance, or when you just need to vent to friends. It becomes useful in a way. Not productive, but useful. And what makes it useful are the things Facebook built itself: photos, events, notes. Any applications beyond that are only good for amusement's sake. The top app developers get that.
I've been pretty anti-Facebook for quite some time, far before it was cool to be anti-Facebook, so I'm probably carrying some baggage there as well.
---
To your points - I think that MySpace v. Any Other Social Network in 2005 and MySpace v. Facebook in 2009, 2008, or 2007 are two different situations entirely.
MySpace WAS Facebook in 2005. Facebook was something else entirely - some sort of exclusive social network you had to be a college student to use. I didn't fall into that demo, so I couldn't use it at the time, being far past college age.
If you compare the two networks now, it's hard to imagine that they're both supposed to be the same class of website. MySpace has let design-rot take root like a bad termite infection. It has problems going back to its inception with spammers.
Facebook doesn't have those problems, and it's working well to ingrain itself to the fabric of the web... but it's not making money, and they seem to have the same disease Twitter has, which is this lack of hunger for picking the low hanging fruits in terms of viable tried and true monetization methods.
I wrote on this at some point when I was at Mashable - when we were all theorizing as to what Project Beacon was going to end up being. My theory, which was way off as it turns out, was that they were building an offsite behavioral ad network that webmasters could use in the same way they use AdSense. They're slowly crawling to this now, I hope, but they're a long way from it, and it's the one killer app that could strike a blow at Google's AdSense and capture a SIGNIFICANT share of the worlds web ad market.
Instead, their content to run what basically amounts to poorly targeted remnant ads INSIDE THE SITE, where they're least effective.
I'll put it this way by giving you an example from an unrelated series of posts I did way back when splogging was a majour scourge on the net. Remember those search engine results we were all getting several years ago that look like a monkey wrote the blog posts? You'd search for "underwater basket weaving" and you'd get a splog with that as the title, and nonsensical computer generated blog posts surrounded by adsense ads?
They worked and made money for the sploggers because the content wasn't what the user wanted to see, and most surfers are as likely to click a relevant link as they are to hit the back button.
Facebook content is too good for ads to work. When I log into Facebook, I'm looking at what I'm there for because it's content tailored to me. All those pageviews mean nothing for ads because I never get bored enough with the content to click on them.
The wilds of the web are much different - content on the web coming from search engine results has varying degrees of relevance to me as a searcher, and ads are much more likely to be clicked.
All this to say that Facebook may be great and all, and they may have the greatest momentum ever, but if they don't get serious and look at the BASICS of how their monetization model works, they're not going to get anywhere. I've been banging this drum since early 2007, and it's frustrating as hell to see so much squandered opportunity. Going on a hiring spree and re-arranging the UX won't fix that problem, and that problem is the crux of what makes a business... money.
---
I see where you're coming from re:Facebook's money. I never gave it much thought what Facebook was doing: I just sort of innocently assume businesses will find a way to survive somehow. So when I was thinking of you saying Facebook wouldn't last, I was thinking only in terms of eyeballs and not in terms of making money. What you just mentioned - MySpace's design-rot - was what made Facebook the superior site once they opened up past colleges. I think that that, along with Facebook's feed, are the two core parts of the social network business, and once Facebook had that, they made themselves hard to unroot by some follow-up act.
I wrote on this at some point when I was at Mashable - when we were all theorizing as to what Project Beacon was going to end up being. My theory, which was way off as it turns out, was that they were building an offsite behavioral ad network that webmasters could use in the same way they use AdSense. They're slowly crawling to this now, I hope, but they're a long way from it, and it's the one killer app that could strike a blow at Google's AdSense and capture a SIGNIFICANT share of the worlds web ad market.
Huh! I'd never thought of that, but you're right: Implemented right (that is, actually getting ads that people click on), they could provide a moderately attractive, supremely targeted ad network. I could see myself using that on a site.
All this to say that Facebook may be great and all, and they may have the greatest momentum ever, but if they don't get serious and look at the BASICS of how their monetization model works, they're not going to get anywhere. I've been banging this drum since early 2007, and it's frustrating as hell to see so much squandered opportunity.
That makes sense. I'm very sorry. I thought you were saying something other than what you were actually saying.
And trust me, if they implemented this, you'd see me do a complete 540 on Facebook. That's right - I'd do a 360 spin plus another 180 just so I'm facing firmly in line with the Facebook supporters.
I love Google, but AdSense needs some real competition on the publisher front to get them to respect publishers ... something like this that was effective and had momentum enough to seize marketshare with web publishers would be the kick in the pocketbook Google needs to shape up and fly right.