Skip to main content

The Future of Facebook

This is an interesting project (link) and it is good to see that it is kickstarted.

The opening video is quite well structured, starting from positive feedback and moving to negative.  I have taken a snapshot of the video at a screen which presages the five areas that will be covered.


There is no doubt that Facebook is (1) a valuable service, and (2) has raised some hackles due to their ownership of users data.

The area from above that most interests me is the "society" sphere, and what a student at Stanford (from the mobisocial lab...sorry, I don't have an exact name) calls the "circle of like."  Facebook provides great value today to users and to websites, and has created a virtuous circle where clicking "like" drives more traffic to Facebook, and more data / information / knowledge to websites.  I highlight this as the circle reinforces two strong user bases, so displacing Facebook is probably harder than even Google imagines.

The main question is: Can Facebook continue to wall-garden personal information, or will doing so create a critical mass of back-lash that ultimately topples them (and gives Google, or someone else, an opening)?   It seems to me that this question is similar to the one Skype faces.  Both have 500M users, and have proprietary systems that encourage walled garden behavior.   Obviously, the scrutiny on Facebook is much higher than on Skype, but both face a similar quandary:  Is the user base loyal and ultimately, more important than the walled garden?  

For Skype, would supporting industry standards top to bottom be a good thing now?  Would users be happier, and more likely to be loyal?  How important is loyalty vs growth when you have a huge user base?

For Facebook, will the current tide of "unease" grow, or is it a short term effect that will simply simmer (but not boil over) due to the value of the Facebook offering?  The current "tide of unease" is something that I sense, rather than have any specific data points around. 

Or, maybe, as rumor has it, the two will join forces?  IMHO that would be a mistake for Facebook.  It would be much more important to focus on search, which creates further virtuous circles, than to invest in voice, which reinforces existing ones.

Regardless, I am looking forward to the analysis of the future-of-facebook.  The team that has been assembled will certainly have opinions to share.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gliese 581g

So...there is probably intelligent life out there.  As the old Monty Python saying goes, "I hope so, cause there certainly isn't much here on earth."  Case in point.  The video for Gliese581g is on MSNBC, and works fine in IE, but crashes in Chrome [ here ].
Post a Comment
Read more

Acsoi - Land Grab Economics

"Adjusted Consolidated Segment Operating Income" ( Acsoi ), is a measure of what a companies profits would be if they were not spending like crazy to acquire a space:  in GroupOn's case, this would be retailers. To me, using Acsoi as a measure is really an admission that a company has no staying power beyond brand awareness.  So, they need to grab and own as much mindshare as they can, as quickly as they can, to increase the barrier to entry for competitors.  Without intellectual property to help protect them, and with the cost of switching (for a user) being effectively zero, building a global brand, and relying on brand stickiness, is the best way forward. Companies like Amazon that have been effective at this have also built in other "sticky" factors over time: recommendation engines, one-click purchasing, etc.  This increases the cost for the user to switch, and allows the company to stop pouring money into marketing and acquisition costs.  You also buil...
Post a Comment
Read more

Schrodinger's Cat is still Alive...and Dead

With Borders scaling back so many of their stores, I have ended up buying more books than I normally would. One I picked up is "What is Life?" by Ed Regis.  It is a good short read, although it is now 2 years old, which is a long time given the rate that "artificial life" is moving at.  Since the book came out, Craig Ventor claims to have created the first artificial life . One thing I did not know was that Schrodinger wrote a book with the same title in 1944 which predicted the existence of a DNA-like molecule;  Crick actually credits Schrodinger with inspiring some of his early work. Ed Regis points out that Schrodinger's book never actually defines what life is; that is left hanging.  Interestingly, I felt the same about Regis's book.  While he argues that life is defined by having an "embedded metabolism" that argument still seems weak.  Carl Sagan pointed out, many years ago, that cars have a metabolism, which is hard to argue against....
Post a Comment
Read more