4 ms·

Facebook doesn't need to have competitive features they only need to have comparative features. Google+ has video chat, now Facebook does. It doesn't matter tha

Facebook doesn't need to have competitive features they only need to have comparative features. Google+ has video chat, now Facebook does. It doesn't matter that Hangout is better. People don't switch social networks based on any single feature.

michaelchisari 15y ago
Do you really think that attitude will allow them to maintain their dominance?
- pvarangot 15y ago
  I think the proper question should be "For how long do you really think that attitude will allow them to maintain their dominance?". Maybe Facebook is in the positions where playing catch-up is good enough for them in the midterm.
- grandalf 15y ago
  What do you think Facebook should have built/announced? Pretty much all of the really useful features are also big privacy violators, and with the uncertainty around how the public views social networking privacy, FB is smart to wait and let Google make the first move.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    Those who don't innovate, fall behind. Who was it that said companies kill themselves, and it's not the competitors that do it?
- kin 15y ago
  You know logic says they won't be able to maintain their dominance but history shows that things don't always follow logically. It's going to be super interesting what plays out next.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  IMO it won't be their tech or attitude that will bring an eventual end to their dominance but shear fashion. Trend following. If Google position themselves and look cool and capture the "cool kids" then FB will lose out to them (to some extent). FB is already getting a little taint, it's run a good innings in internet time. Whichever, G+ or FB, manages to capture the buzz of "hangouts with famous people" will probably take the current round. This to me is the iteration of one of Twitter's big wins; the chance to rub shoulders with "stars". For me, and I suspect most here, such things don't really matter. I'll stay with FB as long as most of my friends are there and it works reasonably well.
  - rapind 15y ago
    This. I sent my wife the intro link for Google+ when they launched and she couldn't even be bothered to check it out. Why? Because everyone she knows is on facebook. If her friends move, then she'll move. It'll probably annoy her to have to switch too.
    - muuh-gnu 15y ago
      > If her friends move, then she'll move. And every of her friends will move if the other friends move, etc. But in reality, it is enough if only one of her friends, the most influential one moves, and then all the worker bees will follow. > Because everyone she knows is on facebook. But why is everyone on facebook in the first place? Because one of them, the group leader, the early adopter, the trend setter, decided first, then the rest passively followed. If the trend setter again decides to go G+, the effort to move off Facebook will be less then losing the queen bee, so they will follow again.
      - rapind 15y ago
        I totally agree. I'm wondering what made the group leaders adopt? Was it features? Trendy name and logo? Did it seem like the hip thing to do? Exclusivity / scarcity?
        15y ago
brudgers 15y ago
>"It doesn't matter that Hangout is better." From a technical implementation perspective maybe Hangout is better. However, from a social networking perspective 3/4 of a billion Skype users is clearly better. And from a marketing perspective, giving Skype users worldwide a reason to choose Facebook over competing products is brilliant.
vannevar 15y ago
Facebook didn't have to be very good when their main competitors were MySpace and Friendster, two poster children for incompetence who blew early leads in quick succession while at times appearing to be run by circus clowns. Fortunately for Facebook success is relative: for a site whose primary purpose is to manage your social network it's been sorely lacking in any credible tools to manage social networks. Facebook is basically Geocities with comments and photo-sharing. Now Zuck and Co are going to actually have to put some thought into it.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  One of the reasons for FB's victory was that its design is staid, standard, but stable compared to the script injection nightmare that MySpace's customization turned into. For all of Zuckerberg's youthful personality (at least as portrayed by the media), it almost feels like Facebook has had a dry corporate juggernaut type ethos from the beginning. FB didn't so much innovate as much as it dominated by creating a cleaner, better-ordered social network. No wonder its color scheme is big blue.
  - adrianwaj 15y ago
    FB became quite awesome when they integrated Friendfeed's technology and the stream became quick and much more transparent in terms of usability. At the same time, when Buzz came out, it was even faster and cleaner. Just not placed in the right context. There must have been some lessons and technology learned from Buzz.
  - tesseract 15y ago
    I agree with what you said, but: remember when the Facebook "Wall" was just a graffiti wall, a big text box that any of your friends could edit?

michaelchisari 15y ago

Do you really think that attitude will allow them to maintain their dominance?

pvarangot 15y ago
I think the proper question should be "For how long do you really think that attitude will allow them to maintain their dominance?". Maybe Facebook is in the positions where playing catch-up is good enough for them in the midterm.
grandalf 15y ago
What do you think Facebook should have built/announced? Pretty much all of the really useful features are also big privacy violators, and with the uncertainty around how the public views social networking privacy, FB is smart to wait and let Google make the first move.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Those who don't innovate, fall behind. Who was it that said companies kill themselves, and it's not the competitors that do it?
kin 15y ago
You know logic says they won't be able to maintain their dominance but history shows that things don't always follow logically. It's going to be super interesting what plays out next.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
IMO it won't be their tech or attitude that will bring an eventual end to their dominance but shear fashion. Trend following. If Google position themselves and look cool and capture the "cool kids" then FB will lose out to them (to some extent). FB is already getting a little taint, it's run a good innings in internet time. Whichever, G+ or FB, manages to capture the buzz of "hangouts with famous people" will probably take the current round. This to me is the iteration of one of Twitter's big wins; the chance to rub shoulders with "stars". For me, and I suspect most here, such things don't really matter. I'll stay with FB as long as most of my friends are there and it works reasonably well.
- rapind 15y ago
  This. I sent my wife the intro link for Google+ when they launched and she couldn't even be bothered to check it out. Why? Because everyone she knows is on facebook. If her friends move, then she'll move. It'll probably annoy her to have to switch too.
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > If her friends move, then she'll move. And every of her friends will move if the other friends move, etc. But in reality, it is enough if only one of her friends, the most influential one moves, and then all the worker bees will follow. > Because everyone she knows is on facebook. But why is everyone on facebook in the first place? Because one of them, the group leader, the early adopter, the trend setter, decided first, then the rest passively followed. If the trend setter again decides to go G+, the effort to move off Facebook will be less then losing the queen bee, so they will follow again.
    - rapind 15y ago
      I totally agree. I'm wondering what made the group leaders adopt? Was it features? Trendy name and logo? Did it seem like the hip thing to do? Exclusivity / scarcity?
      - 15y ago

brudgers 15y ago

>"It doesn't matter that Hangout is better." From a technical implementation perspective maybe Hangout is better. However, from a social networking perspective 3/4 of a billion Skype users is clearly better. And from a marketing perspective, giving Skype users worldwide a reason to choose Facebook over competing products is brilliant.

vannevar 15y ago

Facebook didn't have to be very good when their main competitors were MySpace and Friendster, two poster children for incompetence who blew early leads in quick succession while at times appearing to be run by circus clowns. Fortunately for Facebook success is relative: for a site whose primary purpose is to manage your social network it's been sorely lacking in any credible tools to manage social networks. Facebook is basically Geocities with comments and photo-sharing. Now Zuck and Co are going to actually have to put some thought into it.

Apocryphon 15y ago
One of the reasons for FB's victory was that its design is staid, standard, but stable compared to the script injection nightmare that MySpace's customization turned into. For all of Zuckerberg's youthful personality (at least as portrayed by the media), it almost feels like Facebook has had a dry corporate juggernaut type ethos from the beginning. FB didn't so much innovate as much as it dominated by creating a cleaner, better-ordered social network. No wonder its color scheme is big blue.
- adrianwaj 15y ago
  FB became quite awesome when they integrated Friendfeed's technology and the stream became quick and much more transparent in terms of usability. At the same time, when Buzz came out, it was even faster and cleaner. Just not placed in the right context. There must have been some lessons and technology learned from Buzz.
- tesseract 15y ago
  I agree with what you said, but: remember when the Facebook "Wall" was just a graffiti wall, a big text box that any of your friends could edit?