I think that you have to remember also that Foursquare, in 2004 on that graph, is not about Foursquare... it's about foursquare, I suppose, you know - the game

I think that you have to remember also that Foursquare, in 2004 on that graph, is not about Foursquare... it's about foursquare, I suppose, you know - the game you play with chalk and a playground ball. So I think that that trends graph is a little bit noisy. To me, it's a question of 4sq taking off and Loopt failing to do so, more than foursquare surpassing them when it was a clear neck-and-neck competition. If we're looking at trends as a buzz-o-meter, it's the kind of situation where Loopt is not able to leverage its initial boom of interest to transcend its beginnings. The seemingly 'obvious' answer is to ascribe the disparity to circumstances beyond the startups themselves -- 2009/10 sees a significantly greater penetration of location enabled phones, the effect of Facebook destroying our notions of privacy has sunk in more (joking on that one), etc. I don't know if that's the whole deal, but I think there have to be some macro effects involved beyond just, well, people really like gaming elements and Crowley is the one and only king of location. Quick .02 : ) I think Foursquare has done a good job, but haven't followed Loopt very well to know where they may have stumbled (or merely been unlucky).