
Here's Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years - snambi
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/04/30/heres-why-google-and-facebook-might-completely-disappear-in-the-next-5-years/
======
mindstab
They mentioned amazon as kinda fading into the background as a web 1.0 company
not even being able to capitalize on social, but they missed they part where
amazon is one of the biggest cloud companies out there, single handedly
powering, what, 1% of the internet now all by themselves? They are crazy huge
in infrastructure and I can't see them going anywhere anytime soon

~~~
mtjl79
Remember, this is Forbes.

~~~
ralfd
I don't get Forbes.com. I know "Forbes" from their "rich people" list and my
understanding was they are a US based print magazine. But the website is
nothing like the website of a magazine! It looks like a giant blob of blog
posts and fluff opinion pieces of myriads of different authors
("contributors").

------
tmcw
You know what might disappear in the next 5 years? Forbes.

~~~
nilium
When I consider the way their articles seem to consist mainly of link bait
without substance, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them disappear within
that timeframe. I could swear I remember a time when folks would point to
Forbes as a good publication, but I'm not so sure now. Probably a symptom of
focusing on ad revenue rather than editorial quality and journalistic
integrity.

~~~
tedsuo
Yeah, the amount of linkbait that comes out of there makes me feel like they
have intentionally targeted HN. After clicking on a forbes link, only to
discover it was literally Quora wrapped in an iframe, I stopped clicking. I
now just check to comments to see if any interesting discussion actually
occurred.

------
nextparadigms
Facebook, probably, but I doubt Google. They are no Apple when it comes to
building new business models and money-making products, but I don't see
anything that could kill Google in the next 5 years.

Facebook on the other hand - I'm noticing a (slow) trend of people getting
bored with it. I don't think people are bored with Google searches. Plus, as a
company Facebook is much more vulnerable - a lot less money, a one-hit product
with nothing else outside the social network to show for themselves. Yes, both
use advertising, but that's a business model, not a product/service. It's like
arguing Apple only makes money from selling hardware. Google has multiple
products/services that use advertising. Facebook has one.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I actually think the opposite. Google still relies very heavily on search
related revenue and with more and more people choosing apps over the web, plus
with the advancement of things like Siri the importance of Google for search
could be vastly reduced.

Facebook has massive growth potential. Smartphone usage is continuing to
increase and people are using Facebook on smartphones to communicate (free
text messaging essentially). Also with their purchase of instagram photo
sharing on Facebook will continue to increase further.

Personally I think both will still be around in 5 years (although they will
probably look very different) but I think Google carries the most risk.

~~~
vibrunazo
You do understand "things like Siri" needs search to function; and not only
google is aware of it's importance, but they built a competitor much before it
launched?

~~~
k-mcgrady
They need search to some extent but they don't need Google. Siri tries to
provide answers so it uses Wolfram Alpha, Yelp etc. Previously I had to google
a question and wade through blue links. Now, I ask Siri and it gives me the
answer direct from a knowledgable source. No Google.

"they built a competitor"

I've never used it but I thought that the Android equivalent of Siri was just
voice recognition/dictation?

------
saraid216
Assuming that the article is dead-on about everything (which it certainly
isn't), Google won't be MySpace-dead. The interesting thing about Google is
that they've gone way beyond mere business models. Google is making _AR
glasses_. Google is making _autonomous cars_. Google is _creating new
programming languages_. These aren't bottom line things; these are "enhance
the world" things.

If Google "disappears", they'll turn into an IBM or a Microsoft. Not even
Amazon is quite at that level. And Facebook is absolutely not at that level.
Maybe one day, but not yet. Being a Zuckerberg hater, I don't expect it to
ever happen.

------
Karunamon
Thoughts before reading the article: "Hah! Notta chance."

Thoughts after reading the article: "Hah! Notta chance."

Perhaps a bit of "Hmm, that's pretty interesting coming from a dead tree
magazine.." /s

~~~
njharman
Yahoo, Myspace, Further back AltaVista, AOL. Tech and every non-subsidized
"too big to fail" industry is littered with dead or no longer relevant "notta
chances".

And you should really work on not letting your biases against the messenger
influence your opinion of the message.

~~~
Karunamon
If you notice in my comment, I said that I had read the article in an attempt
to disabuse myself of any preconceived notions.

The article failed to do that. In short, I don't see either of those two
companies failing barring some horrendous unexpected event.

As for the messenger, I just find it kind of funny (in a sad way) that one of
the last bastions of a dying industry is predicting the imminent death of one
that's alive and kicking.. more so one that has an issue with quality control
and FUD-filled headlines.

It's like the buggy whip manufacturers saying these newfangled steam buggies
will never go anywhere.

------
icegreentea
"We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead."

I think that sums up this article.

~~~
slantyyz
And that's coming from a publication that doesn't quite realize print is dead.

------
jinushaun
I don't know what revisionist history people lived in where they actually
thought MySpace was a good idea with staying power and that News Corp's
purchase was a smart bet. I remember distinctly how bad MySpace was and how
ripe it was for disruption by a better alternative. People didn't use MySpace
because it was good. People used it because everyone was _currently_ on there.
I also distinctly remember that News Corp bought MySpace right when all _my_
friends were moving to Facebook. Anecdotally, no one I knew talked about
MySpace positively and couldn't wait to switch to Facebook. No more ugly
profile pages with animated GIFs and obnoxious music? No more slow unreliable
website that seemed to be down all the time? No more ads? No more awkward user
experience? Didn't take a PhD to see where the market was heading.

Which is why I'm stupefied that people nowadays continue to use MySpace as an
example of "it could happen to you" bogeyman story for startups. It was
destined to fail or be replaced. There is no lesson there except don't make a
product that sucks and hope that people don't notice. They noticed. They found
Facebook.

------
gaisturiz
I love that he ends his tirade on the impending irrelevance of current
internet companies with [Long YHOO.] I think the major flaw in Mr. Jackson’s
line of thought is that Web 1.0, Web 2.0, mobile tech companies and whatever
comes next are mutually exclusive of one another. When we talk about the
stalwart companies of the Web 1.0’s, Web 2.0’s, etc. we’re talking about very
different companies which fulfill different types of needs. We see that
they’re not mutually exclusive but rather that they begin to form an intricate
symbiotic web in which each player has an important role. Each new ‘phase’ and
the companies which fill them are only niches which were previously empty (of
which there may be an unknown number.)

I would argue that risks come from companies which through ingenuity can
deliver a better option to an existing one (search, social, etc.) And while
mobile seems to be growing force, I see it as a complement rather than a
competitor to the web; certainly not one that will render the ‘Web dead.’

------
jwblackwell
While mobile apps can certainly provide a better user experience for _some_
tasks, people often seem to forget that everyone in offices across the world
still sit at desks and use a desktop pcs (or a decent sized laptop).

This isn't going to change. I can't work on an iPad or on my phone. While we
all have two arms and two legs people will be working at desks and while
people work at desks they will also occasionally browse social sites at their
desks.

Mobile is big, but it's not ever going to completely replace web applications
designed to be viewed at desks. We haven't even begun to see the start cloud
based software, this is all on top of the fact that a huge percentage of the
worlds population isn't even on the internet yet.

The web is changing, as ever, but outrageous claims like this are either a
product of ignorance or shameless marketing.

~~~
webjprgm
This reasoning sounds a little lacking, but it's probably a disconnect from my
understanding of "mobile" and "cloud" vs. the commenter's intended meaning.
Clearly we need different form factors. We have smart phone size and tablet
size. We definitely need workstation size. But I see mobile as a natural part
of the evolution to the cloud. If data and apps can live in the cloud, then
we're not tied to a machine at a desk. We can carry devices with us. And then
when we get to a desk, we can keep doing what we've been doing, just on the
larger machine. That's what cloud computing keeps talking about. But mobile
computing is a piece in the cloud puzzle. Who cares about keeping data in sync
between all your computers if you only have one desktop machine? I only care
if I have a machines for each form factor and/or location in which I may want
to do work.

Also, one possible technological scenario is that our smartphone acts as our
central profile repository and when we get to a desktop machine the smartphone
talks to it to connect to data, apps, and log you in. In that way the desktop
becomes a seamless part of the mobile experience, providing the larger form
factor as needed.

So you can actually implement this as all mobile and no cloud, or all cloud
and no mobile, but the two are rather synergistic when combined, since mobile
devices talk to the cloud and download software from the cloud. Whether the
desktop gets my user data from a phone or the ethernet port doesn't matter,
but I suspect it could very well do both, using the phone to handle
recognizing it's me and logging me in, then using the internet connection to
download my desktop apps and larger data. Dropbox can sync data between
devices on the same LAN or the internet as needed, so we can do the same for
desktop-phone synchronization too.

------
macspoofing
>We think of Google and Facebook as Web gorillas. They’ll be around forever.

Who thinks that? Especially about Facebook.

------
ckayatek
I think the idea that something like Siri will end Google is silly. Siri is
just an input-output platform for a search. I think the more likely outcome is
that the best search engine will power the best Siri-like app. There's no
reason why Google would miss out on being that search engine.

It is also worth noting that Google dominates mobile search even more than it
does traditional search.

~~~
kemiller
It interrupts their (extremely powerful) brand, though. Right now, the word
"google" literally means search to millions of people. If that switches to
"let me siri that for you" it opens the door for entrants who today don't even
have a chance. If siri can intelligently choose among multiple specialized
search services, even more so.

~~~
webjprgm
Google really does need a way for figuring out the context of my question, so
that it can do the specialization part. If they had a better social presence,
then they could recognize my interests and habits as part of that context. So
knowing I'm a programmer, when I type in "node" they could assume Node.js.

Some context from the question: If they can tell I'm talking about restaurants
they can show me just restaurants. If I type in the name of a park, I don't
want real estate and insurance companies with coincidentally the same name.
Maybe asking a question in a full sentence like you do with Siri gives better
context clues? Or maybe Siri just likes to assume a small set of tasks
(calendar, looking for a business, making a task) and so is good at guessing
those contexts but would be bad at other things. I can't really say much about
Siri because I have an iPhone 4 and not a 4S. Oh well.

Google does do a bit of context guessing, like using Geo IP to guess my
location, so a business or restaurant name comes up with local businesses.

------
islon
"Google has done so little in social". What? Google has the leading smartphone
OS and Android app store is growing by the hour...

~~~
Macha
I presume you mean mobile, not social there?

------
zerostar07
That's like saying Boeing will disappear because they did not invest in Zynga.

------
option_greek
I'm yet to read the article but before that, let me award this the best link
bait headline award -- off to scratch the itch

------
drucken
Typical Forbes link bait:

\- Web is dead

\- Amazon is not social

\- Google the same as Facebook and obsolete ...

This is HN. Please stop posting and up voting this stuff, thanks.

------
sakopov
I think the author is unaware that Amazon is powering a good chunk of internet
businessed.

------
contextfree
"The tech world" started in 1994?

------
wei2012
Here's Why Forbes Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years.

Because we will never have Forbes 2.0

Because I think it will.

LOL

------
nthitz
Ah I doubt that will happen.

------
wavephorm

      We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.
    

Yawn. The person writing this is clearly clueless. The web is not going die.
Anyone who says things like this is clearly an iPhone junkie and not really
paying attention to the larger picture, and the fact that web apps are quickly
catching up to iPhone app experiences, and are quickly going to overtake them.
Native mobile apps are a short term fad. They're toast in the long run,
because they go against the natural order of things -- network-based software
is the future regardless of how cool a silly game you just downloaded is. Data
is moving to the cloud, therefore software will move the cloud (not your
mobile device), and nothing can change this trend... not even Apple.

~~~
rimantas

      >  web apps are quickly catching up to iPhone app
      > experiences
    

They are not.

    
    
      > and are quickly going to overtake them.
    

They are not.

    
    
      > Native mobile apps are a short term fad.
    

They are not.

    
    
      > network-based software is the future 
    

True. Have you noticed, how many native apps get their data from network.

    
    
      > Data is moving to the cloud,
    

True.

    
    
      > therefore software will
      > move the cloud (not your mobile device), and nothing can 
      > change this trend... not even Apple.
    

Have you heard of iCloud? Apple is already there. You are just confusing
networked apps, data in the cloud and web apps. Native apps can have all that
and still offer superior user experience. They will always have that
advantage—no matter how fast the browsers get they will still be a middle man.

~~~
wavephorm
It's all about software delivery. Native apps, whether they be desktop or
mobile based, will always pale in comparison to the simple act of clicking on
a link, and immediately running the software - no downloads, no install, no
headaches. Mobile natives apps can never provide this level of pain-free
software experience. This is especially true if every app that can exist in
the future needs to be moderated by a central authority (Apple). Mobile apps
are not the future, it is the past, in new clothing.

Mobile apps are essentially a re-invention of the CD-ROM software era, in a
new slick iPhone interface. Millions of people constantly re-downloading and
upgrading the same software millions of times again and again. It's basically
Windows freeware/shareware all over again. Some of these apps might have
connection to a website, but it's just tacked onto an ancient software
paradigm. Whereas when you starting building a web-based app, you already
developing for that new hyper-networked paradigm.

In "the future", your web browser becomes the desktop, or the mobile UI, and
the internet is the software. I promise you, in the long term, it does not
matter how successful Apple, and previously Microsoft, are at deceiving you of
this future. It will happen. And it is happening. Everywhere right now, there
are millions and millions of developers building HTML5 apps, and every
improvement to today's browsers is building our future software paradigm --
and it will not be controlled by Apple or Google.

~~~
webjprgm
For a web app to provide the same functionality as a native mobile app the
same content must be downloaded. A mobile app downloads compiled executable
and all assets in a bundle upfront, then it's permanently stored. A web app
downloads UI structure (HTML,CSS) and minimal code (JS) first, appears to
instantly be working, then downloads the rest (media assets like images and
movies, the rest of the code, etc) in the background. In the end, the same
amount of stuff has been downloaded. But web apps have the instant usability
feel to them.

Web apps are improving such that they will be able to match the same
experience and speed of native apps. JS engines run faster, WebGL allows 3D
games, caching of files allows faster starting times. Maybe they'll get close
to native speed, unlikely to match it due to middle man (browser, plus
overhead of compiling JS vs pre-compiled Obj-C). But you still have re-
downloading when the cache clears something out (or else you copy more mobile
app features by letting the user declare what stays in the cache permanently).
Mobile apps are re-downloaded once per update. Web apps will be re-downloaded
more often than that even with good caching (maybe, I guess you could cache
infinitely until you run out of space, so with sufficient space it's
equivalent). So while web apps are playing catchup quite well, mobile apps
still have advantages.

Payment models are different generally, but the models would work fine
regardless of the web app vs. mobile difference. Web apps tend to be
subscription based, mobile apps tend to be buy once with infinite free
upgrades, or using some newer experimental model like "freemium". But you
could make a buy-once web app or a subscription mobile app, and IIRC people
already have.

So, the technologies are converging, and at the end of the day you still have
to get the software from the developer to the user.

JS+WebGL+CSS+HTML+localstorage+... vs. Obj-C+Cocoa, that's just format war.
Open web+browsers vs. curated Apple App Store + iOS vs. un-curated Google App
Store + Android, that's platform war. Someone will win. But people will be
using software on their mobile devices, regardless of how and where they get
it or what's under the hood. Mobile is next, and the interconnectivity of the
web will be working with it, and social will be working with it, and whatever
else comes in the future will also add and change things of course.

~~~
mattmanser
Personally I think you and wavephorm are going to be getting a very nasty
shock in the next 2 or 3 years.

Firstly a browser based application is always going to suck because it's based
in a browser. Reflect on that, it's an application running on an OS inside an
OS. It doesn't matter how fast it gets, it's a subset of a subset of controls.

Secondly, and this I'm not so confident about, but still believe in. Browsers
have sucked at apps for the last 10 years and are going to suck for another 10
years because the HTML standards committees move so
slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. That's why Flash dominated and why
native apps are going to dominate. HTML finally has moved to take on Flash
just as Native Apps killed flash. They're a whole generation behind!

And the third reason? It's all based on javascript. It is practically
impossible at the moment for normal programmers to write medium complexity
javascript. ECMA 5 has been released with a whimper instead of a bang. It's
pathetic. So anything written as a web app will be inferior to the much more
manageable programming languages on the native apps, even though it's [cry]
Obj-C and Java. Javascript is an order of magnitude worse for complex apps
than those two.

Finally, the growing number of OSes. It ultimately means a growing variance in
the quality, speed and modernness of HTML implementations and support, you're
always going to get an edge going native on every OS. Previously we had
Windows. Then Windows and a little Mac. Then Windows, Mac & iOS. Then Windows,
Mac, iOS, Android. Then Windows XP, Windows Vista+, Mac, iOS, Android 2, ICS,
Kindle Fire, etc. The OS market is fragmenting.

~~~
webjprgm
Very good points about why web apps have quality issues.

Some of those issues are not necessarily inherent limitations of the
technology. We don't have to use Javascript, that's just what the standard
currently is. Flash was a possible answer, as is Silverlight, in delivering
apps over the web through a browser. Flash Air (check me on that) was a way to
run a Flash app in what looked like a native format. Chrome 1.0 had a mode
that hides all browser controls in an attempt to mimic the form of a native
app. Java was restrictive in allowed functionality, but people added access to
the Windows task bar, to OpenGL, to all kinds of things via JNI. We can add
all those extra features to a browser via plugins. So it's technically
possible to do all the same things from a browser. It's just a lot harder to
get all the people in the middle to agree on reasonable technologies and then
implement them the same way.

The large amount of OSs argument is interesting. On the one hand, that means
there will be a large amount of mobile OSs for which a native app must be
developed. That's a challenge to developers in itself. On the other hand,
varying compliance with standards and various performance in a browser is
another challenge to developers looking to reach all OSs at once via a web
app.

Java could be brought up again, because of their write-once-run-anywhere idea.
They did very well at making sure all Java implementations were compliant. But
they had to offer a subset of full native capability, a limitation which was
partly worked around by linking to native interfaces in a non-WORA manner. It
sounds like any attempt to write once and run on every platform and have the
software be as pretty and fast and functional as possible is essentially
doomed. There will be limitations to those attempts (UI that doesn't fit in,
no integration with platform-specific features like address book or task bar
or spotlight, no access to technologies that only exist on a subset of
platforms). But you still have the trade-off with the need to write many
native versions for competing platforms otherwise.

------
georgieporgie
I've seen a lot of Forbes articles appear on HN lately. I don't think a single
one of them has seemed the least bit insightful or interesting. They mostly
seem to write poorly-based opinion pieces that show ignorance of large swaths
of tech. They can usually be summed up as, "Web 2.0 ... Web 2.0 ... Web 2.0
..."

~~~
BlackNapoleon
Pundits gonna pundit

------
yashchandra
A great example of "how to get 10000 hits in 10 mins". I loved Forbes btw.

