3 ms·

>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

>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.

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.