4 ms·

If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Their monetisation strategy is becoming increasingly annoying and their ser

by osrec 9y ago

If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Their monetisation strategy is becoming increasingly annoying and their service is not adding enough value to counter that. People will eventually leave if you irritate them enough (see also comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15922022)

fpisfun 9y ago
I think Google realized this a long time ago and it's also part of why they failed with Google plus. They just weren't willing to go down into the gutter the way Facebook is and try to suck up people's time to a ridiculous extent. They have remained too concerned, if you will, with providing actual value and Facebook, from day one, has never had that as a concern as their only concern is getting you to use the app as much as humanly possible.
- Terr_ 9y ago
  One factor that turned me away from Google+ when they were hyping it was their usage model. Having context-sensitive associations "circles" was nice, but they ruined it by not also having context-sensitive identity. Instead there was all that stuff about requiring real names everywhere. In the real world we traditionally rely on other factors to keep out identities separate. A dirty joke told to some friends doesn't get archived and indexed and re-shared with metadata back to your boss. It gets forgotten or attributed to "a guy I know." So it's relatively safe to give your real name in both contexts, and maintain the separation between studious-worker in one context and bawdy-clown in another. But online, maintaining that "freedom to be a different kind of person" isn't reliably safe when both things come from the same user-ID.
kleer001 9y ago
If I was Facebook, I'd start downsizing my company to a slim and trim archival service, maybe even start charging a fee for executive functionality (like what? I dunno) to help support server costs. Maybe even go distributed content where everyone hosts (encrypted) content and shares bandwidth. IMHO online social networks have a 5-7 year half life, after that they stagnate and die because the company tries to chase ad dollars (the easiest dollars to get) and step by step degrades their usefulness. For some reason we don't model business on natural systems (birth -> growth -> reproduction -> death). Seems to me that'd be a good idea if we want to be around in a million years.
Balgair 9y ago
This was the plan from the start though. Zuck took all that money in 2005 from VCs and the like specifically to corner the market on Social Media (or at least be #2 in the space). The entire idea with these start-ups is to become a monopoly by being really good at it, and then when the competition is dead, crank up the money making portion of the service to the point at which people will just not use it. These are 'Unicorn' investments, they are there to make a billion dollars so that the VC is still solvent (1 unicorn covers the 99 other investments). Becoming a monopoly and then 'boiling the frogs' was the entire idea.
- osrec 9y ago
  This is really sad. Makes me want to start a lean, open source social network that keeps the good stuff and does away with the bloat. I bet it could be popular with intelligent people! Anyone interested, email me (see profile) :p
  - droopyEyelids 9y ago
    Intelligence is orthogonal to the basic desires Facebook uses to addict its users
    - osrec 9y ago
      That's the point; it'd be nice to have something similar to Facebook without all of the addictive trash. In my opinion, the concept of a social network in itself isn't bad - it's just the monetisation bit that they've got terribly wrong, along with the use of addictive media to bolster ad revenues.
      - Balgair 9y ago
        I'm less bullish on that idea. The issue is the cost of the service. You have to pay for those servers somehow and for updating the site to the latest versions of iOS or Windows or whatever. There have been MANY attempts at implementing a 'paid FB' or just a straight attempt to tackle FB outright (Ello comes to mind). None have thus far worked. Not saying you can't try, but talk to the other creators out there first to learn from their mistakes. Again, the issue is that servers cost money and you have to find the funding somehow. Ads are good at that. Subscription services aren't thus far, but Patreon may be changing things. Still, with NN out the window now, I'd chill and wait to see how the dust settles.
znpy 9y ago
> If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Thst would be pointless as people do not pay to be on Facebook. And people aren't paid to be on Facebook. People are the product being sold. Proof: this last move tries to improve the product (people's time) for its actual customers (advertisers).
a3n 9y ago
> If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Harvesting value from people's lives seems to be working really well for them at the moment.

by osrec 9y ago

fpisfun 9y ago

I think Google realized this a long time ago and it's also part of why they failed with Google plus. They just weren't willing to go down into the gutter the way Facebook is and try to suck up people's time to a ridiculous extent. They have remained too concerned, if you will, with providing actual value and Facebook, from day one, has never had that as a concern as their only concern is getting you to use the app as much as humanly possible.

Terr_ 9y ago
One factor that turned me away from Google+ when they were hyping it was their usage model. Having context-sensitive associations "circles" was nice, but they ruined it by not also having context-sensitive identity. Instead there was all that stuff about requiring real names everywhere. In the real world we traditionally rely on other factors to keep out identities separate. A dirty joke told to some friends doesn't get archived and indexed and re-shared with metadata back to your boss. It gets forgotten or attributed to "a guy I know." So it's relatively safe to give your real name in both contexts, and maintain the separation between studious-worker in one context and bawdy-clown in another. But online, maintaining that "freedom to be a different kind of person" isn't reliably safe when both things come from the same user-ID.

kleer001 9y ago

If I was Facebook, I'd start downsizing my company to a slim and trim archival service, maybe even start charging a fee for executive functionality (like what? I dunno) to help support server costs. Maybe even go distributed content where everyone hosts (encrypted) content and shares bandwidth. IMHO online social networks have a 5-7 year half life, after that they stagnate and die because the company tries to chase ad dollars (the easiest dollars to get) and step by step degrades their usefulness. For some reason we don't model business on natural systems (birth -> growth -> reproduction -> death). Seems to me that'd be a good idea if we want to be around in a million years.

Balgair 9y ago

This was the plan from the start though. Zuck took all that money in 2005 from VCs and the like specifically to corner the market on Social Media (or at least be #2 in the space). The entire idea with these start-ups is to become a monopoly by being really good at it, and then when the competition is dead, crank up the money making portion of the service to the point at which people will just not use it. These are 'Unicorn' investments, they are there to make a billion dollars so that the VC is still solvent (1 unicorn covers the 99 other investments). Becoming a monopoly and then 'boiling the frogs' was the entire idea.

osrec 9y ago
This is really sad. Makes me want to start a lean, open source social network that keeps the good stuff and does away with the bloat. I bet it could be popular with intelligent people! Anyone interested, email me (see profile) :p
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  Intelligence is orthogonal to the basic desires Facebook uses to addict its users
  - osrec 9y ago
    That's the point; it'd be nice to have something similar to Facebook without all of the addictive trash. In my opinion, the concept of a social network in itself isn't bad - it's just the monetisation bit that they've got terribly wrong, along with the use of addictive media to bolster ad revenues.
    - Balgair 9y ago
      I'm less bullish on that idea. The issue is the cost of the service. You have to pay for those servers somehow and for updating the site to the latest versions of iOS or Windows or whatever. There have been MANY attempts at implementing a 'paid FB' or just a straight attempt to tackle FB outright (Ello comes to mind). None have thus far worked. Not saying you can't try, but talk to the other creators out there first to learn from their mistakes. Again, the issue is that servers cost money and you have to find the funding somehow. Ads are good at that. Subscription services aren't thus far, but Patreon may be changing things. Still, with NN out the window now, I'd chill and wait to see how the dust settles.

znpy 9y ago

> If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Thst would be pointless as people do not pay to be on Facebook. And people aren't paid to be on Facebook. People are the product being sold. Proof: this last move tries to improve the product (people's time) for its actual customers (advertisers).

a3n 9y ago

> If I was Facebook, I'd start to think about how to add more value to people's lives. Harvesting value from people's lives seems to be working really well for them at the moment.