Last time facebook was doomed they managed to set an all time stock price high by getting their shit together.
Google has been public for 9 years now, facebook is just over a year. To call them doomed because they seem intently focused on controlling their rollercoaster stock price seems a little short sighted. At least give them the chance to get their house in order before lambasting them for not spending enough money on trying to make people live forever.
> Google has been public for 9 years now, facebook is just over a year.
Google business model hasn't changed from the day when they figured the masses will pay for clicks (circa 10 years ago).
Facebook, on the other hand, continues to struggle and fail to figure out any meaningful way of making money (facebook credits??), other than selling users info (mostly indirectly) to those with fat wallets who scam masses with fat burner pills and muscle gainers from deep wild amazonian river. And this will continue to piss people off (or in other word, won't bring much value to end-user).
When most connections between lost moms and sons, friends and families, ex-co-workers and crushes from high school had been already re-connected, Facebook stops bringing any extra value. Just exactly how many times you spoke with your old crush before you realized she is fat now, got plenty kids and live on the other continent. Your connection with said lead will fade away and disappear at some point, just like you naturally had a damn good reason to lost a track with her at the first place, before Lee (and Gore) invented the internet. The same token just like today, you woke up 5 years ago, and with God's help you will wake up in next five and go to Google (or your SE of choice) and type a new search for something new you want, you need or you are interested of. Regardless of AI progress this will not change much in next X or XX years.
Good old jingoism ... and nepotism towards his friends, Kurzweil. People like Gruber and Wadhwa should not hold so much sway with normal masses. Just read these two sentences.
"Google already reads my emails before I do, and, by analyzing what I search for on the Internet and which Web sites I visit, knows what I am thinking. It “knows” what other people think about me. If my friend and noted futurist Ray Kurzweil succeeds in his mission at Google, it will understand my wants and needs too. It will predict what I want to search for, where I want to go to, and what I want to eat. It will understand how my brain thinks and become my personal assistant."
"Contrast this with what we can expect from Facebook: more ads, more annoying sponsored posts, more intrusions of privacy. "
Those two sentences make perfect sense. People go to Facebook to socialize, to Google to search. This naturally leads to the conclusion of Facebook going with very constricted models of monetization like having intrusive ads, selling your private information, showing sponsored posts. Google is in a more natural position to advertise, it doesn't have as much to gain by showing you annoying ads as Facebook. In addition to all of this, Google does not seem afraid to venture out into completely new areas. I'm not saying Google is an innocent saint that'll never do any wrong, but it's pretty clear Google's future is markedly brighter than Facebook's. It'll be interesting to see how Google+ shapes in the coming years. One interesting possibility is Google+ having no ads at all (it currently does not have any) for all of its life, because Google can afford to do that and everyone will like that.
Google's future is markedly better than Facebook's ? No way.
Facebook has stickiness and the network effects to keep people on it. Google has none of that. If a better search engine appeared overnight everyone would switch to it and that would be the end of Google. If a better social network appeared very few people would switch. In fact I would postulate that if Microsoft managed to convince Mozilla and Apple to change the default search engines to Bing that it could be almost enough to send Google into a death spiral.
No, it did not. Myspace existed before the concept of social networking really solidifed. Not to mention that Myspace was much more niche in that its main userbase was the young and somewhat technically savvy. Myspace was more of a homepage-builder than it was a social network the way we think of it today.
The concept of social networking solidified with Facebook, and they were in the perfect position to capitalize on the masses moving to the internet for a large chunk of their pass-time. Network effects just didn't exist for Myspace, as seen by the handful of social networks that existed simultaneously with it. Facebook changed the game, and they will dominate until something else similarly changes the game. Whatever it will be, it will look nothing like Facebook.
> If a better social network appeared very few people would switch.
As evidenced by MySpace? With social networks you can split your time between many, the worse ones' usage gradually decaying. The network effect is there but it's not like everybody has to switch at the same time.
Literally one-hundred percent of the people I know who are really serious about email are moving away from Gmail. It was only in mid-2012 that they passed Hotmail for being the biggest email service in the world. Gmail is very popular among certain types of (mostly technical) people.
In fact, it's probably Android that has put them over the edge. Gmail still has a fragile position. At least as far as my browsing habits are concerned, using Gmail didn't lead me back to google search or any of their other services.
Could you imagine what the world would look like if somehow in 4 or 5 years Firefox OS ended up eating Android's lunch?
Search is a major component of their advertising business, which these days is their core business. If people switched they'd definitely be in a major pinch.
Most people I know use gmail, and not a single one of them is thinking of changing due to privacy concerns (as far as I know). What better option is there for a non-technical person anyway?
80%+ of people who own smartphones use android, and they have phones for most niches - big, small, cheap, stylus, unlockable, replaceable battery etc. They have several manufacturers making phones with it. Their position there is not fragile either.
I'd love to see Firefox take off, but there is no way it is going to be bigger than Android.
Sure, there is a very small chance that everyone will stop using Google's products, but the chances of people moving off Facebook is much greater.
You are missing my point. It is not that it is impossible for people to move away from Google, just that it is far more likely that they will move away from Facebook.
And I don't remember anyone saying that people wouldn't eventually move away from iPhones, blackberries and Palm pilots. People might move away from Android, but it would take many years, and it probably won't be en masse to FFOS.
Facebook has stickiness and the network effects to keep people on it
People thought that about Myspace as well.
If a better social network appeared very few people would switch
Yeah, right. A wholesale exodus from Facebook isn't just possible, it's likely, if not inevitable, IMO. Just based on historical trends... the Internet is fickle, man.
No they don't make perfect sense, in fact they should switch companies. Google monetizes on my privately shared data on email, meant only to be consumed among people that i contact privately. It tapping and constructing my future is as much an invasion of privacy as there can be. Now FB monetizes on my publicly shared data, on statuses and hobbies that I want to share with the world voluntarily. View nice little snippets of videos that I view on other timelines. FB Graph is a idea of such niche venture for them. FB does not have to imitate Google, Apple is there to provide competition on that behalf. FB has to just be an essential time pass for masses, just more than Google.
The thing is no single company can survive forever. Soon or later big companies have to be broken up to survive. I'd imagine in the future Google and Apple will face the same problem that MS and Blackberry are facing. Their products are now commonly seen and used don't really mean their business can go well forever. Without attractions (from both users and news reporters), new competitors can sell similar products in more compelling ways and then steal the market.
In the past three days, I've read that the following companies are doomed: Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, LinkedIn, and Samsung.
Good thing I have so many blog posts to tell me about it! Otherwise, I don't think I would have noticed. After all, it's pretty hard to tell that Facebook is doomed, what with all the numbers.
if facebook is able to continue on their mission of "connecting" people and using the registered folks to figure out ways to make it useful, i am sure they will be around for a while.
maybe if it became less "buzz worthy" (ie, teen-focused) and more boring/pragmatic, it could find even more uses for the network and ways to be ubiquitous for a long time. seems like they could displace a lot of firms out there - linkedin being an obvious example. (i know everyone has linked in in a different mental box than facebook, but that could change.)
of course - no company lasts forever. very few companies sustain for 30-40+ years. it's not necessarily a reflection on "the company" that this happens, virtually every company is flawed in some way and time exposes the cracks and can break it apart.
Can the writer of this article read what he's saying? "Fb is lame because they're just using my data to sell me annoying ads...Google on the other hand is learning about me with my data!" (Which they will use to sell you ads)
Not a very good article. The author implies that there will be a mass migration of users to another service if Facebook remains stagnant in terms of carrying out acquisitions. But Facebook continues to improve and update the user experience, so there is little incentive for users to move to a would-be competitor. Not when they already have connections with family members, close friends, and many others. Facebook has very much become a part of many users daily lives like using the Internet, and users have already invested a lot into Facebook; it's like a sunk cost. FB may remain static (in the same niche market) if they don't carry out more acquisitions, but that's (may be) fine. They can't be "doomed" just because other companies are carrying out more acquisitions.
If I had a dollar for every doom and gloom X is Y post, I could finally buy that beach side villa in Danang and sip ca phe sua da's until I get diabetes.
What I find particularly curious about this post is how much this particular author wants to climb back into his mother's womb. I'm not being flippant or glib, re-read the post if you didn't catch it the first time around. He wants technology to think for him, he wants technology to coddle and embrace him so he doesn't have to think for himself. Google will drive him places, google will read his emails and predict his wants and cater his technology consumption to his whims, google will blast his retinas with all the contextual information he'll ever need without having to retain it or know it for himself. He's hoping for the technical equivalent of an antimitotic sac with Google branding all over it, washing him with vital information nutrients.
He also doesn't seem to get Facebook from a socioeconomic standpoint. Facebook doesn't need to do all of these things that Google might do. Facebook just needs to let you feel not lonely when you are feeling lonely. Facebook just needs to connect you with those you aren't necessarily really connected with. Facebook, like it or not, is a new form of communication the same as the phone was, email is, SMS is, etc. The market will decide the value of that.
You're conflating facebook with social networking.
We've had social networking since before the internet was created, and one of the first things to have been done on the internet was social networking (message boards, email, instant messaging, etc).
Facebook is simply one implementation of social networking. There were others, and are still others. For example, email, instant messaging, forums, still exist, as well as new stuff like Pinterest, tumblr, twitter.
Facebook's size is due to network effects, not necessarily because a company like Google is incapable of technically matching facebook's product, or because facebook is dominating with its product. For example, Google was able to grab over 50% of the smartphone market share when it focused its efforts on Android. But, it basically has an insignificant share of the social networking market with Google Plus. Why? It's probably because social networking is more winner-take-all. But this doesn't mean Facebook has won, as the barriers to entry for creating the technical product of a social network is simple. This means facebook has limited control of its users. We grant facebook the monopoly, and it really has limited opportunity to screw us or extract money from us, for once they go over the line, we'll all spill over like water to something else like Google Plus.
This article is quite sensationalist and doesn't seem to consider the fact that every company today is in a different stage of its life cycle.
FB was founded in 2004, while Google was founded in 1998, so it's appropriate to compare today's Facebook with 2007's Google, pre-android and all.
Box was founded in 2005, salesforce: 1999, linkedin: 2001, jawbone: 1999, workday: 2005, amazon: 1994.
Note that the two oldest companies in this list are Amazon and Google, so it's no wonder that they are the ones who have expanded the most beyond their initial markets.
It's always taken a while to build a great company that competes in 2+ markets, and that hasn't changed.
I mean, points on Google being a broader, more innovative company with a larger vision are well taken. And Facebook is still the college dorm room social network. But it's hard to see how a site with 1.1 billion global users will shrink to irrelevance any time soon. Even if it loses 600 million of those users, 500 million people are still using it. Facebook is not doomed by any stretch of the imagination, unless I'm not seeing your definition of 'doom.'
"I expect that a successor to Google Glass will replace my laptop, iPad, and TV; incorporate voice recognition and gestures; and provide me with an immersive 3D-viewing experience."
If you aren't convinced that Google is doing amazing things, then just look at this feature list I made up in my head for the next version of a product that hasn't even shipped!
Stand clear when those expectations collide with reality.
This author likes to make wordy predictions and kick up a buzz. That allows him to maintain his 'opinion leader' status. He doesn't have much of real substance to say..
They may be doomed but they are giving their stock holders a nice return. (disclaimer I hold FB stock, not a lot but whatever).
The weird thing here is that Google wouldn't be so damned focused on ruining their primary product (search) if Facebook wasn't doing as well as it is. So I measure Facebook's success by that, how much Google is willing to damage their bread and butter properties to compete. By that measure they are doing just fine.
42 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 97.4 ms ] threadGoogle has been public for 9 years now, facebook is just over a year. To call them doomed because they seem intently focused on controlling their rollercoaster stock price seems a little short sighted. At least give them the chance to get their house in order before lambasting them for not spending enough money on trying to make people live forever.
Google business model hasn't changed from the day when they figured the masses will pay for clicks (circa 10 years ago).
Facebook, on the other hand, continues to struggle and fail to figure out any meaningful way of making money (facebook credits??), other than selling users info (mostly indirectly) to those with fat wallets who scam masses with fat burner pills and muscle gainers from deep wild amazonian river. And this will continue to piss people off (or in other word, won't bring much value to end-user).
When most connections between lost moms and sons, friends and families, ex-co-workers and crushes from high school had been already re-connected, Facebook stops bringing any extra value. Just exactly how many times you spoke with your old crush before you realized she is fat now, got plenty kids and live on the other continent. Your connection with said lead will fade away and disappear at some point, just like you naturally had a damn good reason to lost a track with her at the first place, before Lee (and Gore) invented the internet. The same token just like today, you woke up 5 years ago, and with God's help you will wake up in next five and go to Google (or your SE of choice) and type a new search for something new you want, you need or you are interested of. Regardless of AI progress this will not change much in next X or XX years.
"Google already reads my emails before I do, and, by analyzing what I search for on the Internet and which Web sites I visit, knows what I am thinking. It “knows” what other people think about me. If my friend and noted futurist Ray Kurzweil succeeds in his mission at Google, it will understand my wants and needs too. It will predict what I want to search for, where I want to go to, and what I want to eat. It will understand how my brain thinks and become my personal assistant."
"Contrast this with what we can expect from Facebook: more ads, more annoying sponsored posts, more intrusions of privacy. "
Facebook has stickiness and the network effects to keep people on it. Google has none of that. If a better search engine appeared overnight everyone would switch to it and that would be the end of Google. If a better social network appeared very few people would switch. In fact I would postulate that if Microsoft managed to convince Mozilla and Apple to change the default search engines to Bing that it could be almost enough to send Google into a death spiral.
The concept of social networking solidified with Facebook, and they were in the perfect position to capitalize on the masses moving to the internet for a large chunk of their pass-time. Network effects just didn't exist for Myspace, as seen by the handful of social networks that existed simultaneously with it. Facebook changed the game, and they will dominate until something else similarly changes the game. Whatever it will be, it will look nothing like Facebook.
As evidenced by MySpace? With social networks you can split your time between many, the worse ones' usage gradually decaying. The network effect is there but it's not like everybody has to switch at the same time.
Between all the people who use Android, Chrome, gmail etc, Google would be just fine if Apple and Mozilla changed default search engines.
At the moment, Facebook are a one trick pony that many people can easily live without.
In fact, it's probably Android that has put them over the edge. Gmail still has a fragile position. At least as far as my browsing habits are concerned, using Gmail didn't lead me back to google search or any of their other services.
Could you imagine what the world would look like if somehow in 4 or 5 years Firefox OS ended up eating Android's lunch?
Search is a major component of their advertising business, which these days is their core business. If people switched they'd definitely be in a major pinch.
80%+ of people who own smartphones use android, and they have phones for most niches - big, small, cheap, stylus, unlockable, replaceable battery etc. They have several manufacturers making phones with it. Their position there is not fragile either.
I'd love to see Firefox take off, but there is no way it is going to be bigger than Android.
Sure, there is a very small chance that everyone will stop using Google's products, but the chances of people moving off Facebook is much greater.
There is always some company that's going to eat the dominant company's lunch.
To think otherwise is to ignore history.
And I don't remember anyone saying that people wouldn't eventually move away from iPhones, blackberries and Palm pilots. People might move away from Android, but it would take many years, and it probably won't be en masse to FFOS.
People thought that about Myspace as well.
If a better social network appeared very few people would switch
Yeah, right. A wholesale exodus from Facebook isn't just possible, it's likely, if not inevitable, IMO. Just based on historical trends... the Internet is fickle, man.
Good thing I have so many blog posts to tell me about it! Otherwise, I don't think I would have noticed. After all, it's pretty hard to tell that Facebook is doomed, what with all the numbers.
Don't people want to disconnect anymore or is just me?
maybe if it became less "buzz worthy" (ie, teen-focused) and more boring/pragmatic, it could find even more uses for the network and ways to be ubiquitous for a long time. seems like they could displace a lot of firms out there - linkedin being an obvious example. (i know everyone has linked in in a different mental box than facebook, but that could change.)
of course - no company lasts forever. very few companies sustain for 30-40+ years. it's not necessarily a reflection on "the company" that this happens, virtually every company is flawed in some way and time exposes the cracks and can break it apart.
I'm pretty sure one of those happened already ...
What I find particularly curious about this post is how much this particular author wants to climb back into his mother's womb. I'm not being flippant or glib, re-read the post if you didn't catch it the first time around. He wants technology to think for him, he wants technology to coddle and embrace him so he doesn't have to think for himself. Google will drive him places, google will read his emails and predict his wants and cater his technology consumption to his whims, google will blast his retinas with all the contextual information he'll ever need without having to retain it or know it for himself. He's hoping for the technical equivalent of an antimitotic sac with Google branding all over it, washing him with vital information nutrients.
He also doesn't seem to get Facebook from a socioeconomic standpoint. Facebook doesn't need to do all of these things that Google might do. Facebook just needs to let you feel not lonely when you are feeling lonely. Facebook just needs to connect you with those you aren't necessarily really connected with. Facebook, like it or not, is a new form of communication the same as the phone was, email is, SMS is, etc. The market will decide the value of that.
We've had social networking since before the internet was created, and one of the first things to have been done on the internet was social networking (message boards, email, instant messaging, etc).
Facebook is simply one implementation of social networking. There were others, and are still others. For example, email, instant messaging, forums, still exist, as well as new stuff like Pinterest, tumblr, twitter.
Facebook's size is due to network effects, not necessarily because a company like Google is incapable of technically matching facebook's product, or because facebook is dominating with its product. For example, Google was able to grab over 50% of the smartphone market share when it focused its efforts on Android. But, it basically has an insignificant share of the social networking market with Google Plus. Why? It's probably because social networking is more winner-take-all. But this doesn't mean Facebook has won, as the barriers to entry for creating the technical product of a social network is simple. This means facebook has limited control of its users. We grant facebook the monopoly, and it really has limited opportunity to screw us or extract money from us, for once they go over the line, we'll all spill over like water to something else like Google Plus.
FB was founded in 2004, while Google was founded in 1998, so it's appropriate to compare today's Facebook with 2007's Google, pre-android and all.
Box was founded in 2005, salesforce: 1999, linkedin: 2001, jawbone: 1999, workday: 2005, amazon: 1994.
Note that the two oldest companies in this list are Amazon and Google, so it's no wonder that they are the ones who have expanded the most beyond their initial markets.
It's always taken a while to build a great company that competes in 2+ markets, and that hasn't changed.
Has he not been paying attention to all of the hate been directed at them at this year alone? After Reader? After the NSA leaks?
People have been complaining about FB for years, and yet they're still huge.
"I expect that a successor to Google Glass will replace my laptop, iPad, and TV; incorporate voice recognition and gestures; and provide me with an immersive 3D-viewing experience."
If you aren't convinced that Google is doing amazing things, then just look at this feature list I made up in my head for the next version of a product that hasn't even shipped!
Stand clear when those expectations collide with reality.
The weird thing here is that Google wouldn't be so damned focused on ruining their primary product (search) if Facebook wasn't doing as well as it is. So I measure Facebook's success by that, how much Google is willing to damage their bread and butter properties to compete. By that measure they are doing just fine.
I think we should expect a "Facebook is doomed" article at least once a month and just ignore them because they're usually baseless.