4 ms·

Agreed 100% and I would just add this one point. Social networks are a winner-take-all game. You're either dominant or nothing. Nobody wants to use a social net

Agreed 100% and I would just add this one point. Social networks are a winner-take-all game. You're either dominant or nothing. Nobody wants to use a social network with only 400 other people on it. That would defeat the whole purpose. Of course, there are specific niches such as Twitter, but Twitter dominates its niche. In a way, social communication and network sites are anti-competitive.

dman 15y ago
I think its rather early days to reach this conclusion. A social network is just a network of people. In the real world small networks of like minded people have often had a disproportionately large amount of utility. The one thing for large social networks right now is that they provide a global namespace of people which helps discoverability. But perhaps in the coming years we shall see social networks emerge for vertical talents where likeminded people can work productively (Mendeley etc come to mind). You could arguably make the point that within each of these verticals a single player will dominate.
- esoteriq 15y ago
  Yes, I see where you're coming from. Let me refine my point. Niches will probably get smaller and smaller. Facebook may lose market-power to smaller, more focused networks. I'm just not sure if that will weaken Facebook to the point that Facebook stops being "the" social network. Facebook is still the ultimate place for global connectivity. Perhaps Facebook will remain Facebook, but people will stop using it as their main social outlet. Like you said, this could result in dominant players within a vertical space. But, how large will these vertical spaces be? I don't know. If i knew, I'd be a millionaire. (I'm not.) Thanks for the mind candy though.
  - beza1e1 15y ago
    I wonder if Facebook could actually become too big. If everything i write into Facebook will be read by friends, bosses, grandma, and father-in-law, i will probably write nothing or only simple jokes. So there might be a point, where everybody has a Facebook account, but nobody uses it anymore. This might be counter by introducing more controls, but that complicates the interface.
    - Fuzzwah 15y ago
      There are privacy options on each post you make. I do see that the point is that on facebook currently its not an intuitive and simple process.
- decode 15y ago
  I think this is already happening. There are successful niche social networks broken up along at least two lines: 1) Geography. VZ-Networks' sites are bigger than Facebook in Germany, Vkontakte seems to still be #1 in Russia. 2) Activity. CouchSurfing.org and meetup.com have completely different use cases than Facebook and are thriving.
luu 15y ago
That's exactly the same argument that was made about content, back in the days of PlayNet, AOL, Prodigy, and the like. Yet, somehow, open websites won; you could also make the same argument about email. Why isn't it possible that social networks will be like the web, and that all these proprietary services will wither away in the face of an open protocol? I'm not saying that's inevitable; I just wonder why everyone believes that the converse is inevitable.
- esoteriq 15y ago
  Oh, good ol' days of the internets... You know, your question got me thinking. I've been trying to imagine a open platform for social networking and I just...can't...conceive of one. Maybe my mind is too limited and uncreative, but I just feel like a open platform would defeat the purpose of social networking sites. For example, LinkedIn - a social network for professionals. If LinkedIn became "open," its utility disappears. You would not be able to trust your "connections" because the network wouldn't be full of professionals. Closed platforms are a bit more trustworthy (and only a bit!). Facebook is probably as open as it gets. That's my guess anyway.
  - lurker19 15y ago
    Huh? LinkedIn has absolutely no restrictions on who can be a member or who can be connected. They only data they curate is the global search index, but that can be replaced by anything else on the Internet, like email or XMPP.
kinkora 15y ago
I'll disagree with the notion that "Social networks are a winner-take-all game". I, and i'm sure many others do too, use different social networks for different group of friends. I.e. I use Facebook primarily to keep in contact with my family and friends who i don't see on a regular basis. I use LinkedIn to keep in touch with people I met on a professional basis. I use Whatsapp to keep in touch with people who are really close to me. I know Whatsapp is not exactly a social network but I believe that it is a first step towards fulfilling a niche that is ripe to be disrupted: A social network for your INNER circle of friends; close friends/family that you interact with on a regular basis. I don't believe any "social network" has fulfilled this niche yet. So in short, social networks is NOT a winner-takes-all-game and there are opportunities to disrupt. I myself is attempting this by taking the Whatsapp model and expanding on that.

dman 15y ago

I think its rather early days to reach this conclusion. A social network is just a network of people. In the real world small networks of like minded people have often had a disproportionately large amount of utility. The one thing for large social networks right now is that they provide a global namespace of people which helps discoverability. But perhaps in the coming years we shall see social networks emerge for vertical talents where likeminded people can work productively (Mendeley etc come to mind). You could arguably make the point that within each of these verticals a single player will dominate.

esoteriq 15y ago
Yes, I see where you're coming from. Let me refine my point. Niches will probably get smaller and smaller. Facebook may lose market-power to smaller, more focused networks. I'm just not sure if that will weaken Facebook to the point that Facebook stops being "the" social network. Facebook is still the ultimate place for global connectivity. Perhaps Facebook will remain Facebook, but people will stop using it as their main social outlet. Like you said, this could result in dominant players within a vertical space. But, how large will these vertical spaces be? I don't know. If i knew, I'd be a millionaire. (I'm not.) Thanks for the mind candy though.
- beza1e1 15y ago
  I wonder if Facebook could actually become too big. If everything i write into Facebook will be read by friends, bosses, grandma, and father-in-law, i will probably write nothing or only simple jokes. So there might be a point, where everybody has a Facebook account, but nobody uses it anymore. This might be counter by introducing more controls, but that complicates the interface.
  - Fuzzwah 15y ago
    There are privacy options on each post you make. I do see that the point is that on facebook currently its not an intuitive and simple process.
decode 15y ago
I think this is already happening. There are successful niche social networks broken up along at least two lines: 1) Geography. VZ-Networks' sites are bigger than Facebook in Germany, Vkontakte seems to still be #1 in Russia. 2) Activity. CouchSurfing.org and meetup.com have completely different use cases than Facebook and are thriving.

luu 15y ago

That's exactly the same argument that was made about content, back in the days of PlayNet, AOL, Prodigy, and the like. Yet, somehow, open websites won; you could also make the same argument about email. Why isn't it possible that social networks will be like the web, and that all these proprietary services will wither away in the face of an open protocol? I'm not saying that's inevitable; I just wonder why everyone believes that the converse is inevitable.

esoteriq 15y ago
Oh, good ol' days of the internets... You know, your question got me thinking. I've been trying to imagine a open platform for social networking and I just...can't...conceive of one. Maybe my mind is too limited and uncreative, but I just feel like a open platform would defeat the purpose of social networking sites. For example, LinkedIn - a social network for professionals. If LinkedIn became "open," its utility disappears. You would not be able to trust your "connections" because the network wouldn't be full of professionals. Closed platforms are a bit more trustworthy (and only a bit!). Facebook is probably as open as it gets. That's my guess anyway.
- lurker19 15y ago
  Huh? LinkedIn has absolutely no restrictions on who can be a member or who can be connected. They only data they curate is the global search index, but that can be replaced by anything else on the Internet, like email or XMPP.

kinkora 15y ago

I'll disagree with the notion that "Social networks are a winner-take-all game". I, and i'm sure many others do too, use different social networks for different group of friends. I.e. I use Facebook primarily to keep in contact with my family and friends who i don't see on a regular basis. I use LinkedIn to keep in touch with people I met on a professional basis. I use Whatsapp to keep in touch with people who are really close to me. I know Whatsapp is not exactly a social network but I believe that it is a first step towards fulfilling a niche that is ripe to be disrupted: A social network for your INNER circle of friends; close friends/family that you interact with on a regular basis. I don't believe any "social network" has fulfilled this niche yet. So in short, social networks is NOT a winner-takes-all-game and there are opportunities to disrupt. I myself is attempting this by taking the Whatsapp model and expanding on that.