Are We in a Social Networking Bubble?
rogerandmike.com>For entrepreneurs, the key message is to be really careful about doing a social networking startup in 2012. The social networking wave is about to crest. There are very few ideas and opportunities in this space that aren’t crowded.
We take a too-narrow definition of social networking. If we want to find the next big thing in the Internet, we need to take a step up the stack of abstraction and think more broadly about connections.
Human beings are wired to connect. It's fundamental human nature, and the subject of the still-new social neuroscience field. [1]
Evidence of this is pervasive throughout our culture. Relationships, marriage, cities, tribes, fan clubs, Hacker News itself - _connecting_ in a meaningful way with other people is what we do.
The Internet's success is it's ability to facilitate connections, making them easier, more personal and more meaningful: email, IRC, instant messaging, gopher, the web, facebook, twitter - it's not just facebook and twitter that are "social networking," every successful Internet communications technology has improved the state-of-the-art in allowing us to connect with each other.
So don't consider "what's next for social networking" -- or "the social networking wave is about to crest." The label restricts your mind. Ignore labels, think big. Consider human nature, relationships and how you can connect us to each other in a more meaningful way. Perhaps you'll find the essence of what the pundits will call 'web 3.0.'
1 - http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/10/22/how-to-read...
"The Internet's success is it's ability to facilitate connections, making them easier, more personal and more meaningful"
I agree that the internet can better facilitate connections but in what regard do you feel that the internet has made interpersonal relationships more personal and meaningful? In my opinion it has done dramatically the opposite. In fact Id argue that the internet doesn't have a role in having a personal and meaningful relationship with someone.
Agree completely. I think the quantity of our relationships have gone up, while the quality seems to be going down.
Honestly I think this line of thinking is a load of baloney. Creating meaningful personal relationships is up to you, not some internet site. You can still call, send a letter, show up at a door, grab a bite to eat, get some drinks, take a walk in the park, play stickball in the street. It's up to you to maintain close relationships. Granted, it's impossible to have "1430" close friends like on FB, but it's not bad having a wider, loose connection with thousands of people ontop of that.
Also, it's still up to you to call your mom, meet up with old old friends once or twice a year, go out to your hometown bar the night before Thanksgiving. Facebook doesn't take away those "moments you'll never remember with the friends you'll never forget." It just lets you keep in touch with those who might otherwise have dropped off the face of the earth. Don't blame some "social media". Also, kids these days, are just kids, let them socialize, it's probably not any worse than video games or TV, and you can't stop adolescent girls from gossiping, even if you take away their text messaging.
That actually is an interesting point. I agree with you pretty much completely from an individualistic perspective - you are responsible for maintaining your own relationships and Facebook is not forcing your relationships onto a digital wall.
I think the only contradictory point Id make is that Facebook (and other networks) makes it convenient to get lazy and boil more of your relationships down to just being digital which likely degrades the meaningfulness and quality of a relationship. For example, talking to or going out with a friend is many times triggered by wondering how that friend is doing or whats new. Facebook removes or degrades that trigger in that you can find out whats new with your friend through their profile without any interpersonal contact.
Now (while again I completely agree that we as individuals are responsible for ourselves) on a macro level when you have billions of people being nudged toward this direction Id say it does create a pretty significant impact on the overall level of quality relationships within our society.
A friend told me one time about a theory he read about, that has to do with how the brain interprets goal accomplishment with sharing your goals. Apparently, the idea is that if you go around telling people about your goals the brain gets the same kind of "high" as if you had actually accomplished them. This diminishes the likelihood of you completing them because in your mind you've already gotten the benefit and the rest is just a lot of extra effort.
I wonder if it's the same thing with Facebook and other social networks. By "socializing" on FB the brain gets the same kind of high as if you had actually spoken to the person, thus making you feel satisfied with the social interaction so you don't seek them out.
Efficiency is probably a better descriptor. How about The Internet allows us to make those connections more efficiently, and each generation of communications technologies increased both the efficiency and quality of our interactions.
I don't disagree with your assertion the internet has diminished the quality of our relationships. I'm a luddite in many ways, but that mindset is part of what has led my thinking down this path.
(1) Human beings are meant to connect, (2) the internet is a tool to facilitate connections, (3) each generation of connection technologies has improved upon the previous, (4) social networking is just the natural evolution of Internet communication technologies, (5) there is still significant room for improvement.
I think you have to define meaningful before. We don't all find meaning in the same things.
"In the early phases of a technology wave, massively powerful gathering forces exist below the surface, but only a handful of visionary technologists, entrepreneurs, and investors really see what’s starting to happen."
As someone who might be considered "visionary" in that I bought many domain names way back in the non-obvious mid 90's I don't even agree with what this statement says.
You think something is going to happen and you take a gamble that you are right and try to limit your downside risk. If you knew you were going to be right you would gamble even more. But rest assured that for that gamble to work out many things would have to happen and the payoff is certainly not quick and certain. Most importantly if enough people take enough chances in different areas statistically some are going to be correct in their assumptions because of things beyond their control and many will fail for the same reason.
And statements like this stating that you should stay away from the froth and "Generally, [you] are better off finding the next gathering wave and a blue ocean of opportunity" are worthless. Essentially find something new to gamble on and you might be the one that guesses correctly about the new new thing. If it were only that easy. It's not.
All other things being equal, yes, it's better to get in on the next thing early than to get in on the current thing late.
But the variables that go into a) when you came up with your idea and b) how convinced you are that the idea is worth pursuing are Not Independent of the wave functions discussed in the article!
Part of the reason you're convinced that your social networking idea is sound is that there are concrete examples of successful businesses operating in the space.
At the end of the day, you either believe in your idea's potential to create value for investors in virtue of creating new/increased value for users, or you don't.
If you do, go for it and live with the wave phase you're dealt.
If you don't, waiting around hoping to pitch it in Next Thing terms probably isn't going to help you.
Yes, but no.
Let's remember that "social networking" is a very, very big thing. In essence it is the foundation of most major communication networks, including the old phone network and the modern internet. It is more than just the little windows into socialization and networking that twitter, facebook, linkedin, etc. represent.
People trying to make the "next facebook" or twitter or what-have-you are going to have problems due to the saturation of very capable competition. But that doesn't mean we've plumbed the depths of facilitating social interactions through software, there's still plenty of room for innovation and disruption.
I agree with you. To me, Facebook's success has been from their ability to become the internet's "telephone book."
You're probably going to have a really hard time building a better telephone book, but the telephone book didn't stop email or any later forms of communication from coming to be.
Google, Facebook, iPhone, Android, Tumblr, etc. had markets that seemed all stitched up (i.e. search, social network, smartphones, iOS dominated smartphone market, blogging).
I would hazard a guess that in 2012-2014. Facebook would have taught the mass market of the concept of social network and grease up adoption of more specialized ones thereby widening the addressable userbase for players that have a great product.
We can see this happening with Instagram, Pinterest, Etsy, Reddit which are all social networks with 1 or few social objects at the center.
For example, Facebook has 800M and Instagram has 15M. thats 1.8%. I would guess that as Facebook gets more and more bloated - that ratio (1.8%) will get bigger as more & more users will need a more insular group and specialized features. In turn, niche social networks will have a higher ceiling of XX% of 800M/1B total social-network-exposed people (courtesy of Facebook - the social network gateway drug so to speak)
Worth reading, from someone who has a bit more insight than your average blogger.
I hate to go Napoleon Dynamite, but you can't know from inside the bubble. The question to ask is whether there is anything for social networking to grow into? What are its horizontals and verticals?
No more "bubble" talk until you actually define what you mean by "bubble."
Did you read the article? The author defined quite clearly how they thought the overvaluing and market correction (ie bursting of the bubble) would progress. They even made a graph!
before reading: emphatically yes.