I entered
Facebook right after they opened to the general public (it's sad to be part of the general public but still...) in September 06, but really dig into it only in May when they opened up as a platform, thus allowing 3rd parties to embed applications into a Facebook environment.
Since then,
the site is said to be on a roll, gaining ground against its biggest competitor, MySpace.
The move seemed to have paid so much,
rumors have leaked that MySpace itself is likely to open up as an application environment. This isn't really in line with the previous strategy of News Corp, that spent millions to buy companies for MySpace to become an all around environment, but still is a good move and indicates that sometimes even big corporations' execs can see the mistakes they made and just change their mind.
But back to the main subject of this post.
This smart post from Stuart Brown suggests that each of the now-thriving social networks are set for a decline sometime in the future. When? That depends on a number of factors:
For the top few sites that attain popular appeal, a healthy period of traffic and utilisation follows the peak in usage - established services such as Flickr, MySpace and Digg have such sustained appeal that they persist at a relatively stable level - the ‘Plateau of Ubiquity‘, if you please. How long a site persists here depends on several factors, principally including the fierceness of competition and the rate at which a site can evolve to keep its users happy.
I agree. But I also think that there's a limit to the possibility of a social networks can
evolve to keep users happy. The simple reason is that social networks are about people. Actually if you're part of a social network there's a chance that the biggest reason you joined was to be in a common and shared environment with your friends. If you just wanted to connect with anybody, you might as well open a blog.
But not all people like to get together. Humanity is differentiated by an almost infinite number of things like age, religion, race, geography and culture.
I wouldn't want to be in a social network of 70-something interested in lake fishing, but there's a chance you'd love to. So if MOST people like who's in Facebook today, more and more people is actually starting to hate them.
I like Facebook but see little value in the site in itself. I brought there some friends (the tech savvy ones at least) but I appreciate most the simple approach of
Twitter. Some might say I'm comparing two different things and it's true but how many sites do you need in your life to feel happy? I just cannot be asked to update
Twitter AND
my blog AND
my other blog AND Facebook...
I'm starting to feel the need of a standard. Could it be that we need a new Microsoft? I would jump in a second (and possibly never leave) into an OPEN platform where you can easily get posts from ANY community (via RSS maybe?) as well as post to any of your friends, no matter where they reside.
You may say that that platform is already there and is called blogging but you would be damn wrong. Blogging is too hard for 90% of human population today. Twitter (or
Pownce?) is what I see as the closest thing but it's not an open platform and that means you cannot update somebody in Facebook unless she added a specific app. Too much hassle.
Such a platform would actually be free from the declining effect that Stuart pointed at, since you would just have loose links to people.
But enough with pointless speculations. See you in Facebook! :-)
UPDATE: I just thought that I have something more to update and that's
my tumblr. Wait a minute... Could it be that
tumblr is the solution I'm looking for?