I'll be honest, a couple of years ago, I believed something similar, but for different reasons:
* Friendships change over time, no social network (Facebook included) could crack that.
* "The youth" don't want to be on the same social network as their parents.
* Timeline spam from games was going to kill the network.
* People were uber concerned about privacy and would flock to a more privacy-aware alternative, particularly with employers starting to check up on employees.
* Someone was bound to go and take away Facebook's golden goose - image hosting.
* Mobile monetization was going to be a massive problem for them.
I had other reasons, but I was young(er) and naive(r). They dealt with those threats - by introducing features, having critical mass, changing their partnerships, reassuring users, opening their wallet, and figuring out how to do mobile well respectively.
Yes, free (as in GNU) software is always a threat to people trying to profit from software, but it's no more serious to Facebook in the medium term than any of the above. People are lazy, there's a lot of inertia behind Facebook at this stage, and setting up your own social network-type stuff on your own server is (and always will be) seen as "too hard" for most people.
I highly doubt that they'll be unseated for quite a while (even under the glacially crushing weight of OSS) so long as they keep making the good calls that they've been making over the past few years.
I think Facebook will disappear, but it may take a bit longer than 3 years. Also, they won't completely disappear, they just won't be as used as they are today.
I think a lot of people are getting bored and frustrated with the service, but they have a lot of history on the site, and they don't have a better alternative to turn to. This causes the wrong form of user "loyalty:" they are trapped.
It's hard to imagine a better service coming along, but they can eventually be outdone on the mobile front or their own internal inertia (which it seems they are fighting) will prevent them from being able to compete.
Change happens fast. Something will show up overnight, then BOOM.. the end.
Didn't this article topic come up a few years ago?
Weren't people saying there was a limit on the number of people you could get into a single social network (like 250k or something like that?) and would never surpass Myspace?
Weren't people saying that Facebook wouldn't figure out mobile monetization?
These types of bold predictions, without really any data or strong evidence, are meaningless and should be down-voted by a tech community that makes changes in the world through science and fact.
Plus, consistently rooting for failure of the thousands of people that work there isn't really cool to begin with.
So the guy also predicts the death of Microsoft, whose OS and productivity software is used by governments worldwide. If there was ever a slow moving body, it is government. If there ever was a body that could be lobbied against even good decisions, it is government.
Nope, don't see MSFT "dying" anytime soon, even if they don't grow by much or even start shrinking slowly.
But you're still right... they get 1,000 bad decisions before they dent their cushion of money.
Facebook, though, I'm less sure. Cringely has been calling it "the new AOL" for years, since its product seems to be a limited subset of what "Internet" provides.
But then again, he's predicted that long enough to look suspicious. A bit like one of my favorite bits from Lenny Bruce - "I know marijuana will be legal someday because all of the lawyers I know smoke it." He may be right, but all those lawyers are probably retired.
Cringely put peak-Facebook at 2014, can't wait to find out if he's right.
I recently read someone make an comparison between the introduction of the telephone and the introduction of social networks. How people had a miss-trust of telephones because they would take away privacy.
Obviously what is needed with social networks is inter network communication. Otherwise we risk creating a monopoly.
So, a fully profitable and easily pivotable company with a few hundred million users will disappear because people can/will switch to their own small servers?
Please, Yahoo and freaking Ask.com (who even uses it?) are still around, and Facebook is way ahead of those two...
* Friendships change over time, no social network (Facebook included) could crack that.
* "The youth" don't want to be on the same social network as their parents.
* Timeline spam from games was going to kill the network.
* People were uber concerned about privacy and would flock to a more privacy-aware alternative, particularly with employers starting to check up on employees.
* Someone was bound to go and take away Facebook's golden goose - image hosting.
* Mobile monetization was going to be a massive problem for them.
I had other reasons, but I was young(er) and naive(r). They dealt with those threats - by introducing features, having critical mass, changing their partnerships, reassuring users, opening their wallet, and figuring out how to do mobile well respectively.
Yes, free (as in GNU) software is always a threat to people trying to profit from software, but it's no more serious to Facebook in the medium term than any of the above. People are lazy, there's a lot of inertia behind Facebook at this stage, and setting up your own social network-type stuff on your own server is (and always will be) seen as "too hard" for most people.
I highly doubt that they'll be unseated for quite a while (even under the glacially crushing weight of OSS) so long as they keep making the good calls that they've been making over the past few years.