Originally Posted by
ry ry
But you're comparing business politics and progressive technological enhancements with people migrating to different services.
Think about the metaphor - Facebook doesn't offer much more than myspace or whatever did. Your example on the other hand, Betamax/VHS was down to corporate support (VHS had films and players) and VHS->DVD was simply because DVD was technologically superior.
I'm sure you can tweak the metaphor until you find something that roughly aligns with people migrating to different free services providing the same base-line functionality, but there isn't a particularly good direct comparison. With social media corportates follow the users rather than vice versa, and the technology is not static so FB can keep updating their product, as can their competitors.
Facebook has won nothing long-term, the big win was their hilarious IPO. The next social media platform will not offer much more than Facebook. If being better than Facebook was all it took to succeed google+ would have more than 6 active users.
G+ is a interesting example actually. They have loads of users/uptake, but only by merit of tying it to a google account and starting to move functionality over to g+, they've moved Google Places into g+ already and i suspect g+ and gmail will be heavily integrated within the next major iteration of gmail.
If anything, i'd hazard an educated guess that key people will migrate from fb to shape their social interaction a little more, and other users will follow them. Nothing revolutionary required.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks