4 ms·

i see, you've got a point. When we think FB, we should be reminded that FB also owns other major social companies like Instagram and Whatsapp to name a few. FB

i see, you've got a point. When we think FB, we should be reminded that FB also owns other major social companies like Instagram and Whatsapp to name a few. FB might be a bigger fish than we might be aware of. Thoughts?

theseatoms 10y ago
> ...than we might be aware of... It's a 400 billion dollar company and, as the GP noted, most people's default web experience.
ma2rten 10y ago
to name a few. Those are the only ones.
aeturnum 10y ago
>FB might be a bigger fish than we might be aware of. I think we're aware of the size of the Facebook fish, but you might not be aware of the size of Microsoft at its peak. Something like 75% of adults in the United States have a Facebook account[1], but at the height of their dominance Microsoft operating systems ran on ~98% of computers [2]. 75% is a lot, but it's probably not a monopoly - especially because Facebook does not make the devices or the OS on the devices. Lots of people use Facebook, but nothing is keeping them using it. Being popular is not illegal. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/09/pew-survey-social-media-facebook-linkedin-twitter-instagram-pinterest/21461381/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/09/pew-survey-soc... [2] https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/8/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/8/
- anonymfus 10y ago
  Your calculation of FB marketshare seems wrong: the right one should be about the share of people who have social networks accounts.
  - gman83 10y ago
    Right, the question shouldn't be what percentage of people have Facebook (which at 75% is incredibly high), but "what % of social media users have a Facebook account".
    - Fuzzwah 10y ago
      Or perhaps it should be "only have a facebook account"....
      - mlonkibjuyhv 10y ago
        How many people owned a Windows PC peak Microsoft? 25%?
  - aeturnum 10y ago
    I think you're right, but I'm not sure where to get those stats :)
- wfleming 10y ago
  I wonder if Bell Telephone is a more apt parallel for FB than Microsoft is. I agree FB is not a monopoly today, so I'm not saying this is the case right now, but if they continue to dominate social networks (both through themselves & their subsidiaries), I could see a day coming when they have an effective monopoly on "online social messaging". Of course, Bell also had a vertical monopoly in that they owned the physical wires in addition to being the service provider, and I think that was part of what brought them down in the end. Unless FB starts buying ISPs they won't be in the same position.
  - jorvi 10y ago
    > Unless FB starts buying ISPs they won't be in the same position. They tried (are trying?) becoming that in poor countries with their 'free' internet initiative.
- guelo 10y ago
  The 75% that use Facebook is much bigger than 100% of the people that used computers back in the late 90s.
  - untog 10y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't really factor into any calculation of "monopoly".
    - vonklaus 10y ago
      Impact is important as "monopoly" is subjective. For example, in Googles financial filings they can't break down numbers because *the search industry is highly competitive and we face challenges from the many other players in the industry". So a company might have close to 75% market share in an industry that matters and they would be a lot easier to prosecute vs the company w/ 100% market (a fleshlight, or other trivial niche thing)
- xelxebar 10y ago
  By the same token, nobody was ever forced to use Microsoft at their peak either.
praneshp 10y ago
I'm only replying because you solicited thoughts. I think you dislike Facebook, and would love for it to be sued/ruled a monopoly/forced to break up. I think people are quite aware of exactly how big a fish they are, and that they are nothing compared to what Microsoft used to be. More importantly, you could buy a computer and phone and live without Facebook (or Instagram. My life would be poorer without Whatsapp though).
- blowski 10y ago
  Is Facebook abusing its dominance to prevent competition, allowing it to artificially inflate prices? This was a big argument against Microsoft in the 1990s - they prevented computer retailers selling computers with non-Microsoft operating systems. On that level, I'm hesitant to call Facebook a monopoly. However, looked at another way, Facebook is now too important to be a private company. It has access to so much data about so many people that the potential for abuse is huge. I wouldn't want to see them become a government owned entity, as the potential for abuse would be just as great (maybe greater) while innovation would inevitably slow down. But I would like to see a regulator that sits on Facebook's board, can review its source code and order changes. My dream would be for Facebook to be broken up and turned into a protocol. But it seems that ship has sailed.

theseatoms 10y ago

> ...than we might be aware of... It's a 400 billion dollar company and, as the GP noted, most people's default web experience.

ma2rten 10y ago

to name a few. Those are the only ones.

aeturnum 10y ago

>FB might be a bigger fish than we might be aware of. I think we're aware of the size of the Facebook fish, but you might not be aware of the size of Microsoft at its peak. Something like 75% of adults in the United States have a Facebook account[1], but at the height of their dominance Microsoft operating systems ran on ~98% of computers [2]. 75% is a lot, but it's probably not a monopoly - especially because Facebook does not make the devices or the OS on the devices. Lots of people use Facebook, but nothing is keeping them using it. Being popular is not illegal. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/09/pew-survey-social-media-facebook-linkedin-twitter-instagram-pinterest/21461381/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/09/pew-survey-soc... [2] https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/8/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/8/

anonymfus 10y ago
Your calculation of FB marketshare seems wrong: the right one should be about the share of people who have social networks accounts.
- gman83 10y ago
  Right, the question shouldn't be what percentage of people have Facebook (which at 75% is incredibly high), but "what % of social media users have a Facebook account".
  - Fuzzwah 10y ago
    Or perhaps it should be "only have a facebook account"....
    - mlonkibjuyhv 10y ago
      How many people owned a Windows PC peak Microsoft? 25%?
- aeturnum 10y ago
  I think you're right, but I'm not sure where to get those stats :)
wfleming 10y ago
I wonder if Bell Telephone is a more apt parallel for FB than Microsoft is. I agree FB is not a monopoly today, so I'm not saying this is the case right now, but if they continue to dominate social networks (both through themselves & their subsidiaries), I could see a day coming when they have an effective monopoly on "online social messaging". Of course, Bell also had a vertical monopoly in that they owned the physical wires in addition to being the service provider, and I think that was part of what brought them down in the end. Unless FB starts buying ISPs they won't be in the same position.
- jorvi 10y ago
  > Unless FB starts buying ISPs they won't be in the same position. They tried (are trying?) becoming that in poor countries with their 'free' internet initiative.
guelo 10y ago
The 75% that use Facebook is much bigger than 100% of the people that used computers back in the late 90s.
- untog 10y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't really factor into any calculation of "monopoly".
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    Impact is important as "monopoly" is subjective. For example, in Googles financial filings they can't break down numbers because *the search industry is highly competitive and we face challenges from the many other players in the industry". So a company might have close to 75% market share in an industry that matters and they would be a lot easier to prosecute vs the company w/ 100% market (a fleshlight, or other trivial niche thing)
xelxebar 10y ago
By the same token, nobody was ever forced to use Microsoft at their peak either.

praneshp 10y ago

I'm only replying because you solicited thoughts. I think you dislike Facebook, and would love for it to be sued/ruled a monopoly/forced to break up. I think people are quite aware of exactly how big a fish they are, and that they are nothing compared to what Microsoft used to be. More importantly, you could buy a computer and phone and live without Facebook (or Instagram. My life would be poorer without Whatsapp though).

blowski 10y ago
Is Facebook abusing its dominance to prevent competition, allowing it to artificially inflate prices? This was a big argument against Microsoft in the 1990s - they prevented computer retailers selling computers with non-Microsoft operating systems. On that level, I'm hesitant to call Facebook a monopoly. However, looked at another way, Facebook is now too important to be a private company. It has access to so much data about so many people that the potential for abuse is huge. I wouldn't want to see them become a government owned entity, as the potential for abuse would be just as great (maybe greater) while innovation would inevitably slow down. But I would like to see a regulator that sits on Facebook's board, can review its source code and order changes. My dream would be for Facebook to be broken up and turned into a protocol. But it seems that ship has sailed.