4 ms·

The Greatest Challenge to Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter is Unbundling

51 points by ttunguz 13y ago

jonathanjaeger 13y ago
I think this thesis can hold true in many verticals and is overall a solid argument. For example, a user might be okay with paying for premium features on a site like Vimeo, Behance, Elance, etc. when they wouldn't pay for similar features on a generic social network like Facebook or Twitter. You're paying for these premium features because the service provided is much more targeted (and provides more value for your time) or the community is more engaged in your media or conversation (and provides a richer experience).
- ttunguz 13y ago
  Yes, agreed. Whenever there is a general platform of large scale, an opportunity exists to unbundle and take the most valuable contributors elsewhere.
sek 13y ago
I think the biggest problem it creates for the big ones is lack of focus. By trying to be everything at the same time, they become cluttered and complicated.
- technoslut 13y ago
  The goal is acquiring information and, in this regard, Google is one company that has extended themselves into many areas but seem to keep their focus pretty well. They may be an outlier though. As for this article, I'm reminded of a similar story with a different point of view posted on Medium: https://medium.com/understandings-epiphanies/aae8d5f880cc https://medium.com/understandings-epiphanies/aae8d5f880cc I do question question the long term value of social networks that operate under what has become the traditional advertising model as teens move towards apps that are more privacy conscious.
gz5 13y ago
Seems this also means these horizontal giants should focus on adding value to these verticals - helping to develop and grow these ecosystems - focus on evolving their horizontal platform attributes?
- ttunguz 13y ago
  Yes, the problem is it's hard to scale that while keeping focus on the core.
wslh 13y ago
The natural problem that arises is how to handle many social networks at the same time? I can think of many different specialized social networks to cover my interests but if I don't have a few or a single "console" they will be impossible to handle. Sometimes I need to post to LinkedIn and Twitter, sometimes to Google Plus depending on the audience. I've written some articles about how I see this future integrations but being self critical I think it is impossible without full APIs. I also wrote recently an article using similar concepts for challenging Google http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challenging-googles-search-engine/ http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challeng...
- thwarted 13y ago
  I don't mind going to different sites to do different things, rather than having everything handled under one umbrella. Mainly because, for example, I find flickr to be a better photo sharing and management experience than some other site that has photo handling tacked on as a secondary feature. Admittedly, twitter's interface isn't the best for what it is (and they keep shutting down tools/sites/apps that might end up with a better interface found via experimentation), and there have been (some successful) attempts at a tool that abstracts away the social network and technical part of different sites and lets you interact with more of them at once. Oddly, it seems other people sometimes do mind going to other sites. Family wanted to know why I didn't post photos to facebook so they could see them. I had been posting links to other sites where I had uploaded them for public viewing and apparently even clicking on a link to go see them was too much cognitive load. However, what I do mind is the walled garden nature of the different sites that keep me from easily and effectively aggregating all my actions across the internet into a single place: both for my own purposes and as a jumping off point for other people to explore.However, twitter keeps shutting down easy access to my data (I can't tell if the v1 api call for favorites via RSS is still enabled, it seems to periodically work; last I checked, there doesn't appear to be a new way, without oauth, to get a feed of favorites). Facebook has an "export" function, but it seems to be all or nothing and single shot, and integrating. Flickr generally has good external integration via simple RSS, but I think that's because Flickr "gets it": they are a photo sharing site and they are not focused on keeping people on the site. That's most likely due to their monetization model. Unfortunately, services that did this, like friendfeed and memolane, are dead or dying. It's really hard to create and maintain one, especially one that is more unified interface than just data aggregation, when the landscape for sharing and integration keeps changing out from under you as sites try to lock users in. The focus on creating an all-in-one do-everything experience rather than something that compliments the features of other sites contributes to this, I think.
danmaz74 13y ago
This is a general law of marketing: You can't be the best at everything, and the more you dilute yourself the more other laser-focused competitors will cut slices from your pie. Tangentially, Google could have played upon this with plus, if they had made into the social foundation for others to create verticals to rival with Facebook. Too bad they didn't go this way.
- tcskeptic 13y ago
  This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure what it means. Could you explain what Google should have done more fully?
  - ryanhuff 13y ago
    I suspect what the commenter meant is that Google could have created an open social platform for others to build upon, resulting in a plethora of specific social implementations targeting many different verticals. Instead, what we have today is G+ as a glue that provides a social foundation for all of their products, although I hope that G+ will open up soon to allow others to build upon it.
    - danmaz74 13y ago
      Your suspect was right :) I remember many discussions about this when G+ was in its infancy. Obviously for Google the best thing would have been for G+ to become facebook - but that was, and is, impossible. So, the second best thing would have been (imho) to beat FB at the openness game, attracting first the developers, and then their users. Alas, they chose a different path.
Hitchhiker 13y ago
http://cdixon.org/2012/11/23/some-problems-are-so-hard-they-need-to-be-solved-piece-by-piece/ http://cdixon.org/2012/11/23/some-problems-are-so-hard-they-... seems to to have the graphic as well ;-)
- danielharan 13y ago
  And Chris Dixon had the decency to give credit where it's due.
zacharyvoase 13y ago
Is it a challenge, though? These 'focused' competitors in many cases might not actually take market share from their more general rivals. It doesn't need to be a zero-sum thing.
- ttunguz 13y ago
  It's a long term challenge I think. If the most valuable people on the network find value elsewhere....
NoodleIncident 13y ago
A social networking site is only valuable to a user once it reaches a critical mass of connections. Maintaining these connections across multiple accounts is a huge pain. None of the existing social networks have any incentive to make this process easier, whether by providing an export tool or conforming to an open "friends list" standard. Specialized Craigslist clones can exist because no one wants to sell apartment space to the same people they buy used furniture from. Friends are friends, though; if you want to share videos with them, there's a good chance you want to see what the tweet, too.
- rubinelli 13y ago
  Specialized networks have two paths. One is offer value even if you are the only user. Instagram and Pinterest do this. The other is making sure people join in groups, which is close to what Yammer does. (There is the dark path of spamming your users' contacts from another network, but we know where it leads.)
  - ttunguz 13y ago
    Yes, right on. Great point.
beachstartup 13y ago
right, except craig never had $Billions to buy out all their competitors as soon as they emerge as a threat.
- ttunguz 13y ago
  yes, balance sheet is really important. CL was never that interested in building a balance sheet by increasing revenues, going public, etc.

51 points by ttunguz 13y ago

I think this thesis can hold true in many verticals and is overall a solid argument. For example, a user might be okay with paying for premium features on a site like Vimeo, Behance, Elance, etc. when they wouldn't pay for similar features on a generic social network like Facebook or Twitter. You're paying for these premium features because the service provided is much more targeted (and provides more value for your time) or the community is more engaged in your media or conversation (and provides a richer experience).

ttunguz 13y ago
Yes, agreed. Whenever there is a general platform of large scale, an opportunity exists to unbundle and take the most valuable contributors elsewhere.

sek 13y ago

I think the biggest problem it creates for the big ones is lack of focus. By trying to be everything at the same time, they become cluttered and complicated.

technoslut 13y ago
The goal is acquiring information and, in this regard, Google is one company that has extended themselves into many areas but seem to keep their focus pretty well. They may be an outlier though. As for this article, I'm reminded of a similar story with a different point of view posted on Medium: https://medium.com/understandings-epiphanies/aae8d5f880cc https://medium.com/understandings-epiphanies/aae8d5f880cc I do question question the long term value of social networks that operate under what has become the traditional advertising model as teens move towards apps that are more privacy conscious.

gz5 13y ago

Seems this also means these horizontal giants should focus on adding value to these verticals - helping to develop and grow these ecosystems - focus on evolving their horizontal platform attributes?

ttunguz 13y ago
Yes, the problem is it's hard to scale that while keeping focus on the core.

wslh 13y ago

The natural problem that arises is how to handle many social networks at the same time? I can think of many different specialized social networks to cover my interests but if I don't have a few or a single "console" they will be impossible to handle. Sometimes I need to post to LinkedIn and Twitter, sometimes to Google Plus depending on the audience. I've written some articles about how I see this future integrations but being self critical I think it is impossible without full APIs. I also wrote recently an article using similar concepts for challenging Google http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challenging-googles-search-engine/ http://blog.databigbang.com/letters-from-the-future-challeng...

thwarted 13y ago
I don't mind going to different sites to do different things, rather than having everything handled under one umbrella. Mainly because, for example, I find flickr to be a better photo sharing and management experience than some other site that has photo handling tacked on as a secondary feature. Admittedly, twitter's interface isn't the best for what it is (and they keep shutting down tools/sites/apps that might end up with a better interface found via experimentation), and there have been (some successful) attempts at a tool that abstracts away the social network and technical part of different sites and lets you interact with more of them at once. Oddly, it seems other people sometimes do mind going to other sites. Family wanted to know why I didn't post photos to facebook so they could see them. I had been posting links to other sites where I had uploaded them for public viewing and apparently even clicking on a link to go see them was too much cognitive load. However, what I do mind is the walled garden nature of the different sites that keep me from easily and effectively aggregating all my actions across the internet into a single place: both for my own purposes and as a jumping off point for other people to explore.However, twitter keeps shutting down easy access to my data (I can't tell if the v1 api call for favorites via RSS is still enabled, it seems to periodically work; last I checked, there doesn't appear to be a new way, without oauth, to get a feed of favorites). Facebook has an "export" function, but it seems to be all or nothing and single shot, and integrating. Flickr generally has good external integration via simple RSS, but I think that's because Flickr "gets it": they are a photo sharing site and they are not focused on keeping people on the site. That's most likely due to their monetization model. Unfortunately, services that did this, like friendfeed and memolane, are dead or dying. It's really hard to create and maintain one, especially one that is more unified interface than just data aggregation, when the landscape for sharing and integration keeps changing out from under you as sites try to lock users in. The focus on creating an all-in-one do-everything experience rather than something that compliments the features of other sites contributes to this, I think.

danmaz74 13y ago

This is a general law of marketing: You can't be the best at everything, and the more you dilute yourself the more other laser-focused competitors will cut slices from your pie. Tangentially, Google could have played upon this with plus, if they had made into the social foundation for others to create verticals to rival with Facebook. Too bad they didn't go this way.

tcskeptic 13y ago
This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure what it means. Could you explain what Google should have done more fully?
- ryanhuff 13y ago
  I suspect what the commenter meant is that Google could have created an open social platform for others to build upon, resulting in a plethora of specific social implementations targeting many different verticals. Instead, what we have today is G+ as a glue that provides a social foundation for all of their products, although I hope that G+ will open up soon to allow others to build upon it.
  - danmaz74 13y ago
    Your suspect was right :) I remember many discussions about this when G+ was in its infancy. Obviously for Google the best thing would have been for G+ to become facebook - but that was, and is, impossible. So, the second best thing would have been (imho) to beat FB at the openness game, attracting first the developers, and then their users. Alas, they chose a different path.

Hitchhiker 13y ago

http://cdixon.org/2012/11/23/some-problems-are-so-hard-they-need-to-be-solved-piece-by-piece/ http://cdixon.org/2012/11/23/some-problems-are-so-hard-they-... seems to to have the graphic as well ;-)

danielharan 13y ago
And Chris Dixon had the decency to give credit where it's due.

zacharyvoase 13y ago

Is it a challenge, though? These 'focused' competitors in many cases might not actually take market share from their more general rivals. It doesn't need to be a zero-sum thing.

ttunguz 13y ago
It's a long term challenge I think. If the most valuable people on the network find value elsewhere....

NoodleIncident 13y ago

A social networking site is only valuable to a user once it reaches a critical mass of connections. Maintaining these connections across multiple accounts is a huge pain. None of the existing social networks have any incentive to make this process easier, whether by providing an export tool or conforming to an open "friends list" standard. Specialized Craigslist clones can exist because no one wants to sell apartment space to the same people they buy used furniture from. Friends are friends, though; if you want to share videos with them, there's a good chance you want to see what the tweet, too.

rubinelli 13y ago
Specialized networks have two paths. One is offer value even if you are the only user. Instagram and Pinterest do this. The other is making sure people join in groups, which is close to what Yammer does. (There is the dark path of spamming your users' contacts from another network, but we know where it leads.)
- ttunguz 13y ago
  Yes, right on. Great point.

beachstartup 13y ago

right, except craig never had $Billions to buy out all their competitors as soon as they emerge as a threat.

ttunguz 13y ago
yes, balance sheet is really important. CL was never that interested in building a balance sheet by increasing revenues, going public, etc.