3 ms·

I think the problem is bigger: All the big platform websites readjusted their strategy back to become destination sites. All what we notice (eg less impact ev

I think the problem is bigger: All the big platform websites readjusted their strategy back to become destination sites. All what we notice (eg less impact even during new-feature-landgrabs) is just a symptom of this. eg: Twitter, Facebook, even Google (see search api), etc etc All started out as platforms. Now all of them focus rather on monetization on-site. I remember a talk of a facebook engineer who said once "facebook.com is just one of the many websites on the fb platform - it is of minor importance - the platform is the social layer of the internet". Back then I personally assumed their main revenue channel will become micropayments (which would go align with the platform strategy). But it didn't happen and i couldn't imagine hearing a similar quote anymore today.

grinich 13y ago
That wasn't an engineer: it was Chris Cox, who is VP of Product. (Though he started as an engineer.) This is actually a very insightful interview about how the leaders Facebook think about the company's strategy. http://on.aol.com/video/an-interview-with-facebooks-vp-chris-cox-325593472 http://on.aol.com/video/an-interview-with-facebooks-vp-chris...
- apalmer 13y ago
  It seems that the correct wording is 'Thought' not 'Think'. Time changes.
  - grinich 13y ago
    In what way has this strategy changed? I think it's timing. You probably could have said the same thing about Google before they launched Adsense. There's nothing stopping Facebook from building a platform to run ads across the web. My guess is they've discovered the web doesn't yet have enough social context to sustain the kind of ads they want to provide. (Instead, they end up feeling like creepy hyper-personalized banner ads.) Because FB.com is about exclusively people (and brands to a degree) it's a suitable environment to show ads or sponsored content based on social behavior. FB is the social fabric for the web, but people still feel it all lives on their website. Quickest way to change this might be to try to own the experience enclosure. (Build a browser, mobile OS, etc.)
    - apalmer 13y ago
      Personal opinion is facebook has definitely over the last couple years realized they have monetize facebook.com itself to a large degree. Probably fb execs still as far as long term strategy view the 'platform' is king and not the website but it appears the length of the 'long term' has significantly stretched, and they realize they need to focus on monetizing the website for the next few years at least. This is all conjecture on my part, no facts to back it up, but just pointing out its common for a business to 'think' XYZ is the monetization solution, and then after time and effort come to realize they have to pivot to another direction. Fundamentally I think a lot of these 'platform' offerings have come to realize they cannot actually monetize the platform at the scale they would like, and have as a result made the business decision to monetize their 'application'/'website'. Twitter, google, facebook, etc this is becoming quite a common phenomenon. In fact the most stable platforms appear to either be outside of the direct control of a single for profit entity, or else an 'add on' feature of a entity highly profitable from another vector. If apple was dependent on the app store for the majority of their profit, I think we would see them having to do an about face, instead the availability of the app store is a 'feature' but their profits come elsewhere so they have freedom to let it operate as a platform.

grinich 13y ago

That wasn't an engineer: it was Chris Cox, who is VP of Product. (Though he started as an engineer.) This is actually a very insightful interview about how the leaders Facebook think about the company's strategy. http://on.aol.com/video/an-interview-with-facebooks-vp-chris-cox-325593472 http://on.aol.com/video/an-interview-with-facebooks-vp-chris...

apalmer 13y ago
It seems that the correct wording is 'Thought' not 'Think'. Time changes.
- grinich 13y ago
  In what way has this strategy changed? I think it's timing. You probably could have said the same thing about Google before they launched Adsense. There's nothing stopping Facebook from building a platform to run ads across the web. My guess is they've discovered the web doesn't yet have enough social context to sustain the kind of ads they want to provide. (Instead, they end up feeling like creepy hyper-personalized banner ads.) Because FB.com is about exclusively people (and brands to a degree) it's a suitable environment to show ads or sponsored content based on social behavior. FB is the social fabric for the web, but people still feel it all lives on their website. Quickest way to change this might be to try to own the experience enclosure. (Build a browser, mobile OS, etc.)
  - apalmer 13y ago
    Personal opinion is facebook has definitely over the last couple years realized they have monetize facebook.com itself to a large degree. Probably fb execs still as far as long term strategy view the 'platform' is king and not the website but it appears the length of the 'long term' has significantly stretched, and they realize they need to focus on monetizing the website for the next few years at least. This is all conjecture on my part, no facts to back it up, but just pointing out its common for a business to 'think' XYZ is the monetization solution, and then after time and effort come to realize they have to pivot to another direction. Fundamentally I think a lot of these 'platform' offerings have come to realize they cannot actually monetize the platform at the scale they would like, and have as a result made the business decision to monetize their 'application'/'website'. Twitter, google, facebook, etc this is becoming quite a common phenomenon. In fact the most stable platforms appear to either be outside of the direct control of a single for profit entity, or else an 'add on' feature of a entity highly profitable from another vector. If apple was dependent on the app store for the majority of their profit, I think we would see them having to do an about face, instead the availability of the app store is a 'feature' but their profits come elsewhere so they have freedom to let it operate as a platform.