6 ms·

First, the author doesn't understand what is meant by the expression "killing". It's not a morbid death wish for the company not to exist but simply to supplan

First, the author doesn't understand what is meant by the expression "killing". It's not a morbid death wish for the company not to exist but simply to supplant their position as pace setter. Yes, IBM, Yahoo and MySpace still exist (and are doing fine in many respects), but what we're talking about is becoming the setting where innovation is going. Google, similarly, will be killed not by a competitor rising out of nowhere, but by falling into irrelevance. Be careful. What's the quote? "It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future." People said the same of Yahoo in the late 1990's. It had many competitors but wasn't really challenged for the top spot. Google came out of nowhere and relegated its dominance of search. "Facebook, on the other hand, doesn't have any such flaws." ... "Facebook is as unkillable as Google." ... "You won 't kill Facebook. No one will." Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable." Your flimsy advice is now recorded to be ridiculed later because you seem not to understand the very nature of technology. The next leaders get this sort of insipid advice all the time but, luckily for all of us, they aren't listening.

ThomPete 16y ago
There is another quote though. We seem to overestimate change in the short run and underestimate it in the long.
haydenchambers 16y ago
"Facebook, on the other hand, doesn't have any such flaws." stopped reading here
js3309 16y ago
A counterpoint...You can quit using Google, MSFT, Yahoo, and etc. But you can't quit your friends. Social networking is a winner take all. That is why i agree with the author that Facebook would have to shoot itself in the foot first.
- greyman 16y ago
  Why you mean by "quit your friends"? About 50% of my friends are not on the Facebook, and I communicate with them using phone, email, or directly meet them. The same with the folks who are on FB...I usually reach them by other means, anyway.
  - whatusername 16y ago
    Really? For me it's down to <10% Friends. (Maybe 50% of family when you count aunties/uncles) And aside from 3 people I don't remember the last time I got an email from a friend. FB Messaging / wall posts own that space completely. Obviously sms still has it's place (ie- want a response in the next 10 minutes rather than the next 24 hours) and nothing can replace in-person communication -- but FB is doing a damn good job of replacing my electronic communication.
- hasenj 16y ago
  There was a point in time where we shared pictures on Flickr. We don't do that often anymore, and even though we're on facebook, we don't share pictures there that often anyway. You can quit facebook if there was a better way to connect to your friends.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- david927 16y ago
  And no one would dump all the contacts and email they have in their Hotmail. In technology, the word never is a fool's word.
- PakG1 16y ago
  Back in the 90s, all my friends and I used ICQ. Then something weird happened. I can't explain why, but everyone started switching to MSN Messenger (this was in Canada, I understand that AIM was more popular in the US). It probably had to do with the nicer UI, but I can't be sure. Basically, ICQ became irrelevant, except in Russia. It's a perfect example of how all your friends can move somewhere else. The other great example: Friendster.
Flenser 16y ago
> Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable." Google beat Yahoo at their own game. Facebook beat MySpace at thier own game. It's a different game than Google were playing, but Facebook made their game more important than Google's.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  What justification do you have that facebook is "more important" than google? Google has something like 30x facebook's revenue, and is still growing at a tremendous rate. Facebook has been growing faster but it'd be silly to imagine that their several hundred percent growth rate could continue forever. Worse yet, facebook's per user revenue is so poor that if we were to assume that their user base expanded to include every computer owner in the world they would still not match google's current revenue. Facebook gets a lot of exuberant press these days but make no mistake, they still have many huge challenges ahead of them. Even if facebook were to double its revenues every year it would still take 4-5 years to catch up to google. A lot can happen in that time.
zephyrfalcon 16y ago
I don't recall that Yahoo was ever the top search engine, by the way. In the late 90s, AltaVista was the search engine of choice. Of course, it could be different if you look at hard numbers... Yahoo is ranked #4 on the list mentioned in the article, yet I don't know anybody who (deliberately) uses it for search. But anyway... Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable." I think Facebook and Google did exactly that. Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first, targeted at a limited audience; I doubt that right from the start they thought they could be the #1 site on the internet, or even the #1 social site. And AFAICT, Google's initial goal was to provide a better search, not to supplant all other search engines. In fact, in my opinion, what they have in common is that they both didn't aim for the top at first; rather, they carved out a niche, then worked from there.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I don't recall that Yahoo was ever the top search engine, by the way. Yes, but lots of people wanted to be like Yahoo. I think the whole portal idea came from sites wanting to be like them.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first" That's a little uncharitable. I joined Facebook fairly early on (when it first launched for college students), and it was the first social networking app of any sort to even hold my attention. Friendster came and went without me ever visiting, so did MySpace... We may not like all that FB is doing, but IMHO it was a lot more than a me-too, even in the beginning.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    Myspace and Facebook were pretty on par circa 2006, I had both with more friends on MySpace by far. MySpace did more of the kinds of things we wanted. I can play music on my profile! And skin it! Like Winamp! Hell, I even got a date through myspace because I met someone new, try that on Facebook! (chuckle away) Turns out, those "features" weren't actually good things. And when MySpace turned into a spam infested, buggy, always down piece of crap we all turned to Facebook. Honestly I think Facebook blew up in that time because MySpace dropped the ball. I don't remember anything compelling about Facebook at the time when the bulk of my group switched, other than that it didn't break so much.
mitjak 16y ago
That's right! The next Facebook will be coming out written by my fingers! In PHP, no less! That's what my client says anyway. I'm being paid in free run eggs.

ThomPete 16y ago

There is another quote though. We seem to overestimate change in the short run and underestimate it in the long.

haydenchambers 16y ago

"Facebook, on the other hand, doesn't have any such flaws." stopped reading here

js3309 16y ago

A counterpoint...You can quit using Google, MSFT, Yahoo, and etc. But you can't quit your friends. Social networking is a winner take all. That is why i agree with the author that Facebook would have to shoot itself in the foot first.

greyman 16y ago
Why you mean by "quit your friends"? About 50% of my friends are not on the Facebook, and I communicate with them using phone, email, or directly meet them. The same with the folks who are on FB...I usually reach them by other means, anyway.
- whatusername 16y ago
  Really? For me it's down to <10% Friends. (Maybe 50% of family when you count aunties/uncles) And aside from 3 people I don't remember the last time I got an email from a friend. FB Messaging / wall posts own that space completely. Obviously sms still has it's place (ie- want a response in the next 10 minutes rather than the next 24 hours) and nothing can replace in-person communication -- but FB is doing a damn good job of replacing my electronic communication.
hasenj 16y ago
There was a point in time where we shared pictures on Flickr. We don't do that often anymore, and even though we're on facebook, we don't share pictures there that often anyway. You can quit facebook if there was a better way to connect to your friends.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
david927 16y ago
And no one would dump all the contacts and email they have in their Hotmail. In technology, the word never is a fool's word.
PakG1 16y ago
Back in the 90s, all my friends and I used ICQ. Then something weird happened. I can't explain why, but everyone started switching to MSN Messenger (this was in Canada, I understand that AIM was more popular in the US). It probably had to do with the nicer UI, but I can't be sure. Basically, ICQ became irrelevant, except in Russia. It's a perfect example of how all your friends can move somewhere else. The other great example: Friendster.

Flenser 16y ago

> Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable." Google beat Yahoo at their own game. Facebook beat MySpace at thier own game. It's a different game than Google were playing, but Facebook made their game more important than Google's.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
What justification do you have that facebook is "more important" than google? Google has something like 30x facebook's revenue, and is still growing at a tremendous rate. Facebook has been growing faster but it'd be silly to imagine that their several hundred percent growth rate could continue forever. Worse yet, facebook's per user revenue is so poor that if we were to assume that their user base expanded to include every computer owner in the world they would still not match google's current revenue. Facebook gets a lot of exuberant press these days but make no mistake, they still have many huge challenges ahead of them. Even if facebook were to double its revenues every year it would still take 4-5 years to catch up to google. A lot can happen in that time.

zephyrfalcon 16y ago

I don't recall that Yahoo was ever the top search engine, by the way. In the late 90s, AltaVista was the search engine of choice. Of course, it could be different if you look at hard numbers... Yahoo is ranked #4 on the list mentioned in the article, yet I don't know anybody who (deliberately) uses it for search. But anyway... Facebook and Google usurped their predecessors from out of nowhere. They both wouldn't exist if their founders said to themselves, "I'm not going to try to overtake Yahoo/MySpace -- they're unkillable." I think Facebook and Google did exactly that. Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first, targeted at a limited audience; I doubt that right from the start they thought they could be the #1 site on the internet, or even the #1 social site. And AFAICT, Google's initial goal was to provide a better search, not to supplant all other search engines. In fact, in my opinion, what they have in common is that they both didn't aim for the top at first; rather, they carved out a niche, then worked from there.

stcredzero 16y ago
I don't recall that Yahoo was ever the top search engine, by the way. Yes, but lots of people wanted to be like Yahoo. I think the whole portal idea came from sites wanting to be like them.
potatolicious 16y ago
> "Facebook was just another "me-too" social networking site at first" That's a little uncharitable. I joined Facebook fairly early on (when it first launched for college students), and it was the first social networking app of any sort to even hold my attention. Friendster came and went without me ever visiting, so did MySpace... We may not like all that FB is doing, but IMHO it was a lot more than a me-too, even in the beginning.
- krschultz 16y ago
  Myspace and Facebook were pretty on par circa 2006, I had both with more friends on MySpace by far. MySpace did more of the kinds of things we wanted. I can play music on my profile! And skin it! Like Winamp! Hell, I even got a date through myspace because I met someone new, try that on Facebook! (chuckle away) Turns out, those "features" weren't actually good things. And when MySpace turned into a spam infested, buggy, always down piece of crap we all turned to Facebook. Honestly I think Facebook blew up in that time because MySpace dropped the ball. I don't remember anything compelling about Facebook at the time when the bulk of my group switched, other than that it didn't break so much.

mitjak 16y ago

That's right! The next Facebook will be coming out written by my fingers! In PHP, no less! That's what my client says anyway. I'm being paid in free run eggs.