3 ms·

Facebook isn't a real monopoly unless you consider "social network" a real product. But in reality "social network" as a product is a bit thin, since it's real

Facebook isn't a real monopoly unless you consider "social network" a real product. But in reality "social network" as a product is a bit thin, since it's really just a crossover of blogging and communication. There's nothing of value that facebook does which the general populace can't replace with something else within a week. People won't run out of ways to communicate with each other, and they won't run out of ways to shout and throw pictures into the void. In fact people used to change platforms like clothes and the continued dominance of facebook in a lot of countries is a bit of an anomaly. Also only about 50% of Australians even are on Facebook, which is slightly more than Europeans, but way less than north Americans.

z92 6y ago
> continued dominance of facebook in a lot of countries is a bit of an anomaly. Scaling for cheap is the winning strategy here. Google had its social network before facebook too. Orkut. Didn't scale cheaply. Invite only to limit load. Facebook could do it. Fast loading pages serving billions. I was trying gab.com recently. Too slow. Too much non responsive. Even after they are trying their best. And even though they make money from premium membership.
- smt88 6y ago
  Just to be clear, you think the company that runs Gmail and YouTube failed at a social network because they couldn't figure out how to scale it efficiently?
smt88 6y ago
> But in reality "social network" as a product is a bit thin, since it's really just a crossover of blogging and communication. > There's nothing of value that facebook does which the general populace can't replace with something else within a week. This is a very engineer-y way to understand the value of Facebook. No one logs on to Facebook because it automates publishing and messaging extraordinarily well. They log on because it's the only place to access enormous amounts of data created by friends, family, groups, and local businesses. If using Facebook is the only way to see daily photos of my grandchildren, I'm going to use it. > Also only about 50% of Australians are even on Facebook. How many are on either Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp? I guarantee the number is far more than 50%.
nathias 6y ago
people that used to change platforms like clothes and people on facebook are not the same people

z92 6y ago

> continued dominance of facebook in a lot of countries is a bit of an anomaly. Scaling for cheap is the winning strategy here. Google had its social network before facebook too. Orkut. Didn't scale cheaply. Invite only to limit load. Facebook could do it. Fast loading pages serving billions. I was trying gab.com recently. Too slow. Too much non responsive. Even after they are trying their best. And even though they make money from premium membership.

smt88 6y ago
Just to be clear, you think the company that runs Gmail and YouTube failed at a social network because they couldn't figure out how to scale it efficiently?

smt88 6y ago

> But in reality "social network" as a product is a bit thin, since it's really just a crossover of blogging and communication. > There's nothing of value that facebook does which the general populace can't replace with something else within a week. This is a very engineer-y way to understand the value of Facebook. No one logs on to Facebook because it automates publishing and messaging extraordinarily well. They log on because it's the only place to access enormous amounts of data created by friends, family, groups, and local businesses. If using Facebook is the only way to see daily photos of my grandchildren, I'm going to use it. > Also only about 50% of Australians are even on Facebook. How many are on either Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp? I guarantee the number is far more than 50%.

nathias 6y ago

people that used to change platforms like clothes and people on facebook are not the same people