5 ms·

I think the idea that Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter would be the biggest beneficiaries is mistaken. Facebook is obviously a behemoth in anything it does just b

by ebbv 10y ago

I think the idea that Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter would be the biggest beneficiaries is mistaken. Facebook is obviously a behemoth in anything it does just because its user base is so huge right now, but it is in decline. The future of anything is not in Facebook. Young people know Facebook isn't cool. Snapchat is cute but it's never going to be the dominant anything. It's an app for seeing pictures of naked girls that people also use to share pictures of food and stuff. Twitter has also stagnated and Periscope was a still birth. Youtube is the king of online video, and will continue to be so for some time. Twitch is the king of streaming live gaming video, and will continue to dominate that space. Its efforts to expand into other areas have been hindered by the fact that a) the audience for watching people do other stuff besides play games live is not as big and b) for things that might have some audience appeal like say cooking or whatever, Twitch hasn't reached those audiences (and its not friendly to those audiences since everything about Twitch screams gaming. Which it should since that's where its money is.) The place where Youtube and Twitch fall flat is narrative entertainment video. Netflix, Hulu and Amazon obviously dominate that space. I agree with the analysis that the current industry mindset of "We all make our own apps and make our own money!" is not the future. Everybody's only limiting their own audiences there. If anyone can manage to bundle multiple quality video subscription services (e.g. if Amazon could bundle Hulu + HBO) of your choosing they would see massive subscriber increases. That's the thing that's missing right now, is a la cart bundling. And why the cable industry is dying. We by default have a la cart bundling online right now but there's no discount for doing multiple. If someone can manage that (i.e. Apple) they're in a good state.

untog 10y ago
> The future of anything is not in Facebook. Young people know Facebook isn't cool. The future doesn't have to be cool, though. Facebook is nearing the position of just being a universal social platform. Not "buzzy" and "cool", but nonetheless something everyone uses. > Snapchat is cute but it's never going to be the dominant anything. It's an app for seeing pictures of naked girls that people also use to share pictures of food and stuff. OK, you lost me there. I don't use Snapchat myself, but even at a quick glance it's clear that the younger generation use it obsessively, for everything. The "naked pics" argument hasn't been true in years.
- ebbv 10y ago
  It's past the point of being something everybody uses, that's what I was getting at. Young people don't use Facebook and more and more people are leaving it. I think we are past Peak Facebook. :) Snapchat has high usage right now but it's like Instagram or Flickr or Yahoo Images before it, it's not a social network and it's easily abandoned at a moment. In fact, even more easily than any of those since you don't have a library of content on it that you are tied to.
  - panglott 10y ago
    It's not that FB isn't cool. Facebook is something for people who have established identities. It's not a place where you can experiment with different identities. Young people have FB accounts, but they don't spend much time there b/c youth is the time you have to establish an identity of your own.
    - ebbv 10y ago
      That's not it at all. FB is just lame. It's the place where your grandma posts rants about Obama being Hitler. It's the place where your mom comments on all your pictures with your friends. It has nothing to do with establishing an identity and everything to do with it being the online equivalent of your Aunt's living room on Thanksgiving.
      - panglott 10y ago
        Defining and expressing "coolness" is an essential part of articulating an identity. As is curating your relationships to different audiences.
howeyc 10y ago
I agree with the premise. People aren't going to pay 5-10/monthly for each channel/studio/etc. So the "BIG" networks are in for some hurt. Maybe customers will "rotate" and buy 6 months of CBS, binge, then cancel and do 6 months of FOX, etc??? What I see over the next 5-10 years is a bunch of exclusives happening as each new/current streaming service attempts to grab users by having the best content. However, I think content creators will wake up and instead see their share can increase by selling the same content to multiple streaming services. I see the transition between these two taking close to a decade for many reasons: 1) There aren't many major streaming companies YET. So they each have huge sums to slosh around for exclusivity. 2) Current contracts are multi-year. 3) Each channel/studio hasn't created its own online platform (app) yet. Attempting to be its own HBO/Netflix. This is coming, some are quicker than others. I guess the real question is, what happens when every broadcast channel has its own online "app" available for 5-10/month, with only its own content? I personally think they capitulate and license their content to as many other streaming providers as possible to increase revenue. This leads consumers to pick streaming providers based on which "channels/studios" they have. And now we're back to channel packages. Except on the internet. Except this time, maybe no commercials?? And less fixed on time (ie not every series must have episodes be either 22/30 or 44/60 minutes long).

by ebbv 10y ago

untog 10y ago

> The future of anything is not in Facebook. Young people know Facebook isn't cool. The future doesn't have to be cool, though. Facebook is nearing the position of just being a universal social platform. Not "buzzy" and "cool", but nonetheless something everyone uses. > Snapchat is cute but it's never going to be the dominant anything. It's an app for seeing pictures of naked girls that people also use to share pictures of food and stuff. OK, you lost me there. I don't use Snapchat myself, but even at a quick glance it's clear that the younger generation use it obsessively, for everything. The "naked pics" argument hasn't been true in years.

ebbv 10y ago
It's past the point of being something everybody uses, that's what I was getting at. Young people don't use Facebook and more and more people are leaving it. I think we are past Peak Facebook. :) Snapchat has high usage right now but it's like Instagram or Flickr or Yahoo Images before it, it's not a social network and it's easily abandoned at a moment. In fact, even more easily than any of those since you don't have a library of content on it that you are tied to.
- panglott 10y ago
  It's not that FB isn't cool. Facebook is something for people who have established identities. It's not a place where you can experiment with different identities. Young people have FB accounts, but they don't spend much time there b/c youth is the time you have to establish an identity of your own.
  - ebbv 10y ago
    That's not it at all. FB is just lame. It's the place where your grandma posts rants about Obama being Hitler. It's the place where your mom comments on all your pictures with your friends. It has nothing to do with establishing an identity and everything to do with it being the online equivalent of your Aunt's living room on Thanksgiving.
    - panglott 10y ago
      Defining and expressing "coolness" is an essential part of articulating an identity. As is curating your relationships to different audiences.

howeyc 10y ago

I agree with the premise. People aren't going to pay 5-10/monthly for each channel/studio/etc. So the "BIG" networks are in for some hurt. Maybe customers will "rotate" and buy 6 months of CBS, binge, then cancel and do 6 months of FOX, etc??? What I see over the next 5-10 years is a bunch of exclusives happening as each new/current streaming service attempts to grab users by having the best content. However, I think content creators will wake up and instead see their share can increase by selling the same content to multiple streaming services. I see the transition between these two taking close to a decade for many reasons: 1) There aren't many major streaming companies YET. So they each have huge sums to slosh around for exclusivity. 2) Current contracts are multi-year. 3) Each channel/studio hasn't created its own online platform (app) yet. Attempting to be its own HBO/Netflix. This is coming, some are quicker than others. I guess the real question is, what happens when every broadcast channel has its own online "app" available for 5-10/month, with only its own content? I personally think they capitulate and license their content to as many other streaming providers as possible to increase revenue. This leads consumers to pick streaming providers based on which "channels/studios" they have. And now we're back to channel packages. Except on the internet. Except this time, maybe no commercials?? And less fixed on time (ie not every series must have episodes be either 22/30 or 44/60 minutes long).