3 ms·

I suppose it's Time's little tradition so they can name whoever they want, but I still feel like they missed the mark on this one. Most people would admit that

by ryandvm 16y ago

I suppose it's Time's little tradition so they can name whoever they want, but I still feel like they missed the mark on this one. Most people would admit that Facebook is a pretty interesting phenomenon. That a few hundred million people are at least shallowly engaging with people they haven't seen in years is pretty remarkable. But where I disagree with Time is that I don't think Zuckerberg was a particularly necessary ingredient. Facebook hit the scene as basically a cleaner, better designed MySpace. Zuckerberg's execution was spot on, but frankly, a lot of people could have done it. A large part of Facebook's success was being at the right place at the right time. And once the network effect kicked in, it pretty much drives itself. Assange on the other hand has put his ass on the line and managed to embarrass and disgruntle some of the most powerful players on the planet - ostensibly in the name of transparency. The implications of his actions are that world super powers are having to reconsider many of their assumptions about diplomacy and security, and that the world's citizenry are having to ponder the value and risks of free speech. Or at least they should be...

larrik 16y ago
There were a ton of websites trying to be Facebook, and really only Facebook succeeded. Give them a little credit, jeez.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Sometimes it's impeccable execution, sometimes is perfect strategy or exquisite timing, and yet, sometimes, it's like winning the lottery. Some people/companies, for reasons that defy logic, get incredibly lucky.
spitfire 16y ago
I actually suspect facebook succeeded in spite of Mark not because of him. If you look back to friendster et al, they all had very smart people trying to do fancy graph algorithm searches. They failed to deliver the basics that people wanted. Mark I suspect isn't nearly as good a programmer as the press (or his company PR) makes him out to be. Early versions of the site were a simple PHP index app. Only now once they've hired significant talent has he started harping on and on about the "social graph". Simply put I don't think he was up to the level to even do graph traversals/searches/etc at that point. If Mark had tried to do the graph stuff first, would he be just another corpse littering the landscape? I suspect so. So his incompetence was his lucky pot of gold.

by ryandvm 16y ago

larrik 16y ago

There were a ton of websites trying to be Facebook, and really only Facebook succeeded. Give them a little credit, jeez.

rbanffy 16y ago
Sometimes it's impeccable execution, sometimes is perfect strategy or exquisite timing, and yet, sometimes, it's like winning the lottery. Some people/companies, for reasons that defy logic, get incredibly lucky.

spitfire 16y ago

I actually suspect facebook succeeded in spite of Mark not because of him. If you look back to friendster et al, they all had very smart people trying to do fancy graph algorithm searches. They failed to deliver the basics that people wanted. Mark I suspect isn't nearly as good a programmer as the press (or his company PR) makes him out to be. Early versions of the site were a simple PHP index app. Only now once they've hired significant talent has he started harping on and on about the "social graph". Simply put I don't think he was up to the level to even do graph traversals/searches/etc at that point. If Mark had tried to do the graph stuff first, would he be just another corpse littering the landscape? I suspect so. So his incompetence was his lucky pot of gold.