3 ms·
It was outcompeted two decades ago. Friendster, Google+, Orkut… they were all outcompeted by the Facebook juggernaut, and even that has become stale in absence
by qubex 1y ago
It was outcompeted two decades ago. Friendster, Google+, Orkut… they were all outcompeted by the Facebook juggernaut, and even that has become stale in absence of real competition as younger generations have migrated to Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and others.
Friendster was early to the game but it died, and it died for a reason. Let it rest.
- ravenstine 1y agoYou're assuming it has to be the same Friendster that it was back then.
- qubex 1y agoNo, I’m assuming that social networking follows Metcalfe’s Law, and that there’s no real way to migrate users en masse, so there’s no incentive to migrate individually if there’s nobody you know there to network with.
- trod1234 1y agoIncorrect in the reason, but they did succumb for another reason which hasn't changed, so correct sentiment. You can't compete against companies that don't have a loss function constraint on their business.
- qubex 1y agoI didn’t really give a reason why I think Friendster died, so how can I be wrong about it?
- trod1234 1y agoYou gave a reason. > It was outcompeted two decades ago.
- qubex 1y agoFair enough. I guess that’s a kind of reason. I’d be satisfied with a reason if it specified how it had been outcompeted, and speaking personally from somebody who lived through the era it was kind of clunky and at least when I used it there was no notion of ‘networks’ (that Facebook initially had, and then retired probably more than a decade ago) or ‘groups’ — I have memories of user accounts named after organisations or common interests with lots of ‘friends’ linking to them… and also the notion of user ‘walls’ and status updates was very embryonic. My girlfriend at the time was utterly engrossed but really it failed to draw me in. Facebook a few years later however was like a syringe of blue dopamine straight to the brain.