They could certainly do many of those things, but how would they monetize them? It's easy to compete with another service if yours is free and their costs mone

They could certainly do many of those things, but how would they monetize them? It's easy to compete with another service if yours is free and their costs money (which is why many casual users I know use Facebook and don't have a Flickr account), but if Facebook charged for improved photo-sharing features, as it seems like it would need to if that was how it was going to support itself, then it might be a more difficult value proposition. Same thing with Skype-like VOIP services. If you're offering free calls, sure you can get users. But the second you start charging, you're going to be competing with Skype et al on merit (and for the much smaller number of users who are willing to pay a non-zero amount for the service), and they have a big head start. It sure doesn't look trivial to me. Facebook doesn't have a "natural advantage" versus other players in any of those fields. In fact, it seems like they'd be at a disadvantage, since those companies are specialized -- they can afford to put all their effort into being the best photo-sharing service, VoIP service, etc., in order to get people to open their wallets. I'm not as bearish on Facebook as the author but I do think they have some significant challenges ahead. Translating users (even engaged users) into revenue is a challenge that lots of other companies have failed at, so their success is in no way certain.