Have we really gotten to the point where something that surfaced just two months ago as a rumor can actually be called vaporware?
I can see why the author of the article would be a little let down compared to last year's platform launch, but this is still a pretty solid release. heck, is it even necessarily a good thing for the site to drastically remake itself every year?
If nothing else, anyways, a tightening of the excesses of some applications goes a long way towards convincing me to go back to facebook.
Facebook is boring to me as an idea. There is nothing in that site that would be interesting to me. Social networks are boring, the only interesting thing in them is people, and im apparently too antisocial or something, because i don't find people that interesting. The only reason i have a MySpace account is because of a friend of mines band(I don't actually use that account for anything, just to look up shows)My Last.fm account i just check in on at time to time to see my statistics for the week(i stopped using the social part of the site) I also use it for quick info on bands and stuff.
Arrington doesn't "get" Facebook. His complaint about the messaging system is proof of that. What he needs to understand, what ALL of these tech types need to understand, is that Facebook is made for the casual user, not the power user. Power users get punished, in fact: information gets diluted and the system weakens.
The comments that've been posted here are proof of that. People talking about bloated news feeds, damaged apps, or (my favorite) how "boring" the idea of having friends is... this is all completely missing the point. Facebook is for people that have friends, and want to interact with them when they're supposed to be doing something else. And any attempt to make it into anything else will fail.
I can testify to this, seeing as I'm Facebook's target customer. Just graduated high school; I'm not extremely active comparatively but I have some semblance of a social life. Facebook's systems are geared towards me. When I get back from a prom, I can see photos of me and other people, and if I don't know the other people we can talk over the pictures. If a friend wants to let something out that he doesn't feel comfortable saying out loud, he writes a note about it. Event inviting - good way of getting people to meet in person. Shared items is the least-used feature on Facebook, and it's because that's the one feature that gets used more by nerds than by normal people.
But TechCrunch and Scoble saw Facebook growing, they found that it was well-designed - and in terms of small comfort features, Facebook blows every other site out of the water - and they assumed that Facebook was meant for them. Well, it wasn't. That's what makes it such a good site. Look at Virb, which feature-wise is much more in tune with the tech world. There's a reason that you don't see Virb brought up in comparison to Facebook. It's because it's designed for critics, not the masses.
And - let's talk about apps a moment - application designers really don't have a chance. I think Facebook knows this, too. Their platform isn't meant to create value for the users so much as it is a means to weaken other casual sites. Top Friends drew most of my MySpace-addled school towards Facebook. Compare Friends took away the few Orkut users we had. These are not productive. Not like Flixster is supposed to be, or Box.net, or even Flickr or Digg or Last.fm. The products that add actual value to the service are the ones doomed to fail. Because there's no market for productivity on Facebook. Facebook is where large networks go to die.
Two years ago, when I wrote a bit for AllFacebook and used Facebook ravenously (see: a new feed's worth of actions per day), I noticed a trend in people types. Among the low-end social people, the people with just an illusion of a social life, there was tremendous activity. These were people who checked things every half hour. Among the majority of the users, though, there was either no activity every day, or there was a status update activated via cell. People were not using Facebook to manage their lives, they were using it as a sort of back-up. An in-between. These were the people who would update their top friends once every three days, which I would sneer at. "What a waste of time," I thought, as I continued to productively check every 30 minutes and respond to every message with essays (I like writing, whether for productive use or no). Really, though, Facebook wasn't a time sink for those people. It was a quick way to stay amused. These people, these casual users who go on for Chat and status and little else, these people are the main market of Facebook.
The people who don't care about efficient profiles. The people who will be as amateurish as they want because they know only their friends can see in. These are the people Facebook knows it needs. Why else would it take so long to fix up the profiles? It knows that most people don't WANT efficiency in profiles, that when they're going on they're going on to waste a little time. But it's not meant to be a constant thing, either. Assuming Facebook CAN be product...
I think you were dead-on with your assessment right up until your last paragraph where you say that Facebook doesn't want to be anything more than a brief time-waster. I think they very clearly do want to be something much bigger, given their rhetoric "we're a social utility! we want to reward more productive apps! we want to be a platform for the social web and make information everywhere more open!" and given the tremendous financial incentive to do so. Does anyone think that FB would fetch anywhere near 15 billion if it were aspiring to be just a brief time waster and not a new major platform for the web? Not that the 15B was a real valuation, but you can bet they are still aiming that high.
Anyway, I think that Facebook very much wants to be a new Microsoft, a platform for other valuable apps (if the apps that sit on top of Facebook aren't valuable, then the platform itself isn't very valuable), but they find themselves being stuck as a simple time-waster because that's what the bulk of their userbase wants.
I think ZUCKERBERG wants to be much more. I don't think the entire company does. Either that or they're fooling themselves significantly. I think we've seen already that apps don't have a bright future, unless Facebook does a MAJOR about-face. But see, from what I've seen, Facebook's just parroting Apple right now. From design to ambition to strategy. And this is an example of them following Apple again. But they don't have the powerful platform that Apple does, and they can't play the same game. Nor can they play at Microsoft's game. Microsoft appealed to the CORPORATE environment. Not to college kids. The one route has a future of productivity. Not the other.
7 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] threadI can see why the author of the article would be a little let down compared to last year's platform launch, but this is still a pretty solid release. heck, is it even necessarily a good thing for the site to drastically remake itself every year?
If nothing else, anyways, a tightening of the excesses of some applications goes a long way towards convincing me to go back to facebook.
The comments that've been posted here are proof of that. People talking about bloated news feeds, damaged apps, or (my favorite) how "boring" the idea of having friends is... this is all completely missing the point. Facebook is for people that have friends, and want to interact with them when they're supposed to be doing something else. And any attempt to make it into anything else will fail.
I can testify to this, seeing as I'm Facebook's target customer. Just graduated high school; I'm not extremely active comparatively but I have some semblance of a social life. Facebook's systems are geared towards me. When I get back from a prom, I can see photos of me and other people, and if I don't know the other people we can talk over the pictures. If a friend wants to let something out that he doesn't feel comfortable saying out loud, he writes a note about it. Event inviting - good way of getting people to meet in person. Shared items is the least-used feature on Facebook, and it's because that's the one feature that gets used more by nerds than by normal people.
But TechCrunch and Scoble saw Facebook growing, they found that it was well-designed - and in terms of small comfort features, Facebook blows every other site out of the water - and they assumed that Facebook was meant for them. Well, it wasn't. That's what makes it such a good site. Look at Virb, which feature-wise is much more in tune with the tech world. There's a reason that you don't see Virb brought up in comparison to Facebook. It's because it's designed for critics, not the masses.
And - let's talk about apps a moment - application designers really don't have a chance. I think Facebook knows this, too. Their platform isn't meant to create value for the users so much as it is a means to weaken other casual sites. Top Friends drew most of my MySpace-addled school towards Facebook. Compare Friends took away the few Orkut users we had. These are not productive. Not like Flixster is supposed to be, or Box.net, or even Flickr or Digg or Last.fm. The products that add actual value to the service are the ones doomed to fail. Because there's no market for productivity on Facebook. Facebook is where large networks go to die.
Two years ago, when I wrote a bit for AllFacebook and used Facebook ravenously (see: a new feed's worth of actions per day), I noticed a trend in people types. Among the low-end social people, the people with just an illusion of a social life, there was tremendous activity. These were people who checked things every half hour. Among the majority of the users, though, there was either no activity every day, or there was a status update activated via cell. People were not using Facebook to manage their lives, they were using it as a sort of back-up. An in-between. These were the people who would update their top friends once every three days, which I would sneer at. "What a waste of time," I thought, as I continued to productively check every 30 minutes and respond to every message with essays (I like writing, whether for productive use or no). Really, though, Facebook wasn't a time sink for those people. It was a quick way to stay amused. These people, these casual users who go on for Chat and status and little else, these people are the main market of Facebook.
The people who don't care about efficient profiles. The people who will be as amateurish as they want because they know only their friends can see in. These are the people Facebook knows it needs. Why else would it take so long to fix up the profiles? It knows that most people don't WANT efficiency in profiles, that when they're going on they're going on to waste a little time. But it's not meant to be a constant thing, either. Assuming Facebook CAN be product...
Anyway, I think that Facebook very much wants to be a new Microsoft, a platform for other valuable apps (if the apps that sit on top of Facebook aren't valuable, then the platform itself isn't very valuable), but they find themselves being stuck as a simple time-waster because that's what the bulk of their userbase wants.