5 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different c

Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?

raker 9y ago
There's other ways to communicate with other people online, you see? That's overlap! /s
babaganoosh89 9y ago
Weird because he does everything he can to protect his monopoly by buying promising social companies while they're young.
robsun 9y ago
He bought Instagram because they are talented developers, not because they are a competitor. /sarcasm
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
r00fus 9y ago
Mark has always thought his primary competitor is email. Let that kind of hubris sink in for a moment. He's smart and capable but I don't think he has perspective. Perhaps he never did.
- arrrg 9y ago
  Why do you think that‘s hubris? I think that‘s a great way of looking at Facebook and what it provides.
- dsacco 9y ago
  What hubris?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Gargoyle 9y ago
People here told me Google+ was amazing and that everyone worth associating with was on there. Is that no longer true?
- sincerely 9y ago
  Unless you're suggesting that nobody I interact with in real life is worth "associating with", then that statement has never been true.
grecy 9y ago
>Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular Internet social network, right now, but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly. Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one company that comes to mind right now.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  >Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. Sure there is; all of the people on FB already. The fact that the software can be replicated is not the only consideration. If, in practice, they have a virtual monopoly due to user lock in then it's a reasonable debate to have. I'm certainly out of my depth on the legal end of this, but your definition is far too simplistic.
  - grecy 9y ago
    >virtual monopoly due to user lock in But users aren't locked in. They have not paid a yearly fee which still has 11 months left, they don't have to pay a fee to leave, and they don't have to pay a fee to join the other network. Users can come and go as they please, and there are alternatives they can use, if they choose. If they don't want to use the other network because their friends aren't on it, that's just their choice, not "lock in".
    - adventured 9y ago
      Your premise only exists in a simulation where humans aren't human, where instead they're robots that think solely rationally and are not inconvenienced by anything. That's nearly the exact opposite of how people behave. When you're actually dealing with human customers and users, it's nearly impossible to convince them to switch once they're comfortable with a product or service. Those people have to be tremendously inconvenienced to do so, while simultaneously being presented with a great alternative - often it requires a 10x-style superior product that isn't just great, it's a huge leap over what's already available. Switching costs are immense with Facebook. If you have 100 friends on there, and you're the first to abandon their network and move to a new social network where none of your friends exists - that's a huge cost for the average person. It may or may not be a cost to you, it is an immense cost to most people. That also applies if you attempt to maintain profiles on both networks, it's a time and annoyance/inconvenience cost, people hate such.
dqpb 9y ago
There's Google+
- paulie_a 9y ago
  I actually liked Google+ but let's be honest, dozens of users is not a social network
amelius 9y ago
Why didn't telephone companies suffer from a similar network effect, and isn't there a monopolist in telephony? Can we apply the same principles in the case of Facebook?
- amarkov 9y ago
  They did suffer from a similar network effect, which was only broken when AT&T accepted a consent decree to spin off all its regional providers.
paxys 9y ago
If we're talking globally then Facebook is quite obviously not a monopoly. Just within the US, I guess you have to conclusively define what it has a monopoly in, i.e. what is "social networking". For online messaging there is iMessage, Hangouts, Skype, Snapchat. Photo sharing - Snapchat again, Twitter, probably even just email. For videos there is YouTube. For maps and check-ins there is Foursquare, Yelp. And the concept of having an online identity tying all these services together is done by Google as well.
- sumoboy 9y ago
  He should have responded with every company having a chat platform, social graph, and ad platform. So google, linkedin, twitter, apple, microsoft, and so on. Then consult with the grandkids for an explanation on how things actually work. Trying compare FB that has been around for 14 years vs. the automobile for over a 130 years was silly. FB is about making $$ with ads, the social aspect is a drug for the eyeballs. Why didn't they just ask him if he considered himself the worlds digital drug dealer? Congress acting all worried "you have our private information and going to use it against us", where were you when the net neutrality vote was the topic?
saudioger 9y ago
Well he's certainly not going to testify that he thinks he does.

raker 9y ago

There's other ways to communicate with other people online, you see? That's overlap! /s

babaganoosh89 9y ago

Weird because he does everything he can to protect his monopoly by buying promising social companies while they're young.

robsun 9y ago

He bought Instagram because they are talented developers, not because they are a competitor. /sarcasm

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

r00fus 9y ago

Mark has always thought his primary competitor is email. Let that kind of hubris sink in for a moment. He's smart and capable but I don't think he has perspective. Perhaps he never did.

arrrg 9y ago
Why do you think that‘s hubris? I think that‘s a great way of looking at Facebook and what it provides.
dsacco 9y ago
What hubris?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Gargoyle 9y ago

People here told me Google+ was amazing and that everyone worth associating with was on there. Is that no longer true?

sincerely 9y ago
Unless you're suggesting that nobody I interact with in real life is worth "associating with", then that statement has never been true.

grecy 9y ago

>Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular Internet social network, right now, but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly. Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one company that comes to mind right now.

EpicEng 9y ago
>Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. Sure there is; all of the people on FB already. The fact that the software can be replicated is not the only consideration. If, in practice, they have a virtual monopoly due to user lock in then it's a reasonable debate to have. I'm certainly out of my depth on the legal end of this, but your definition is far too simplistic.
- grecy 9y ago
  >virtual monopoly due to user lock in But users aren't locked in. They have not paid a yearly fee which still has 11 months left, they don't have to pay a fee to leave, and they don't have to pay a fee to join the other network. Users can come and go as they please, and there are alternatives they can use, if they choose. If they don't want to use the other network because their friends aren't on it, that's just their choice, not "lock in".
  - adventured 9y ago
    Your premise only exists in a simulation where humans aren't human, where instead they're robots that think solely rationally and are not inconvenienced by anything. That's nearly the exact opposite of how people behave. When you're actually dealing with human customers and users, it's nearly impossible to convince them to switch once they're comfortable with a product or service. Those people have to be tremendously inconvenienced to do so, while simultaneously being presented with a great alternative - often it requires a 10x-style superior product that isn't just great, it's a huge leap over what's already available. Switching costs are immense with Facebook. If you have 100 friends on there, and you're the first to abandon their network and move to a new social network where none of your friends exists - that's a huge cost for the average person. It may or may not be a cost to you, it is an immense cost to most people. That also applies if you attempt to maintain profiles on both networks, it's a time and annoyance/inconvenience cost, people hate such.

dqpb 9y ago

There's Google+

paulie_a 9y ago
I actually liked Google+ but let's be honest, dozens of users is not a social network

amelius 9y ago

Why didn't telephone companies suffer from a similar network effect, and isn't there a monopolist in telephony? Can we apply the same principles in the case of Facebook?

amarkov 9y ago
They did suffer from a similar network effect, which was only broken when AT&T accepted a consent decree to spin off all its regional providers.

paxys 9y ago

If we're talking globally then Facebook is quite obviously not a monopoly. Just within the US, I guess you have to conclusively define what it has a monopoly in, i.e. what is "social networking". For online messaging there is iMessage, Hangouts, Skype, Snapchat. Photo sharing - Snapchat again, Twitter, probably even just email. For videos there is YouTube. For maps and check-ins there is Foursquare, Yelp. And the concept of having an online identity tying all these services together is done by Google as well.

sumoboy 9y ago
He should have responded with every company having a chat platform, social graph, and ad platform. So google, linkedin, twitter, apple, microsoft, and so on. Then consult with the grandkids for an explanation on how things actually work. Trying compare FB that has been around for 14 years vs. the automobile for over a 130 years was silly. FB is about making $$ with ads, the social aspect is a drug for the eyeballs. Why didn't they just ask him if he considered himself the worlds digital drug dealer? Congress acting all worried "you have our private information and going to use it against us", where were you when the net neutrality vote was the topic?

saudioger 9y ago

Well he's certainly not going to testify that he thinks he does.