The hot topic on Techmeme today is a story quoting Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer claiming that the rush into sites like Facebook could be a fad. Naturally, there has been a slew of people claiming that this could be nothing further from the truth; Robert Scoble puts forward one of the better arguments against Ballmer.
But what if Ballmer could be right?
Lets look at the exact quotes for some context:
“I think these things [social networks] are going to have some legs, and yet there’s a faddishness, a faddish nature about anything that basically appeals to younger people,”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Some social networking startups will have legs and will last for a long time, a whole lot of them wont. MySpace was hot 2 years ago, Facebook is hot today, what’s to say the latest fad isn’t around the corner tomorrow?
Consider the Dictionary definition of fad:
“A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze”
Hasn’t the rush to embrace Facebook been a craze? and certainly people signing up to use Facebook are doing so with great enthusiasm. The question then becomes whether the craze is short term or long term? Anyone remember Friendster?
More from Ballmer:
There can’t be any more deep technology in Facebook than what dozens of people could write in a couple of years. That’s for sure,”
Mr Ballmer also noted that sites such as Geocities, an online community that was bought for $3 billion by Yahoo! in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom, “had most of what Facebook has.”
The Geocities comparison isn’t totally accurate because as a Geocities user from around 1995-1998 I don’t recall there being a lot of strong social networking aspects, although there were “neighborhoods” where you could connect with people. But in the broader context Geocities was a fad, a site that went supernova with traffic only to fall away when others provided (often better) alternatives.
Ballmers right on the tech side: Facebook’s backend could be duplicated over time, so can Facebook last over the longer term and not be replaced by a new site/ fad?
That question is yet to be answered.
I’ve been positive on Facebook because unlike MySpace I get the appeal of Facebook, although unlike many others I’m not religiously using it every day. I think that Facebook will likely last the distance, but that’s not a 100% sure bet.
What I can say with absolute certainty is that the management of Facebook will be considering the longer term viability of Facebook as well, particularly given the massive growth over the last 12 months that can’t be sustained for ever. Facebook have the advantage of being able to learn from the mistakes of others in the past, but even with that knowledge history can often repeat itself. Facebook’s number one challenge today is turning the Facebook fad into a long term, sustainable business.
Nothing of what Ballmer has said is intrinsically wrong, particularly from a business viewpoint. Ballmer’s role at Microsoft in terms of investments and acquisitions is to try to pick the winners, and a big part of that is considering whether some (or all) social networking sites are fad, because there is one thing for certain: some of them will be, as many have been in the past.
See all
Post
Come on…it’s clear what Balmer’s trying to do: put down facebook so the price drops and Microsoft can grab it.
This thing of somethign being a fad is more a problem with the Valley than the rest of the world. College folks–where facebook started–are beyond the point where facebook is seen as the “cool” thing. Now it’s just the duh thing. Most college kids can’t go without it. In fact, most of my friends would be willing to shell out few bucks to use it.
Just as in every boom there are losers–there are also winners. And if facebook isn’t going to be a winner, we might as well put the rest of the start-ups featured on TC in the deadpool:)
I’m on Scoble’s side here. Ballmer is saying that socnets are just technological widgets that are easy to make, and Microsoft doesn’t have to worry, it can jump in with the same tech anytime.
Ah, sour grapes after the miserable showing of Microsoft Spaces, recall that “answer” to MySpace?
Ballmer says a specific platform is a fad. He misses the trend by focusing on the trend-carriers or trend-embodiments.
Tim Berners-Lee and Marc Andreessen, with their What’s New pages, in 1992, began the blog. The blog is almost as old as the web itself, then, and few understand this.
The web was intended to be “bloggy” from the very beginning. And Berners-Lee is pushing for the Read/Write Web, where we can have versions of any website, annotated, juggled around, user-customized web, including the open source meta/database web.
The trend is toward social media community, intensive personalization, networks of people sharing interests.
For Ballmer to denounce this long-time trend from static conventional websites to highly interactive and co-created web sites, blogs, wikis, etc., is rather myopic.
Xanga, Geocities, Tripod, LiveJournal, Blogger, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Digg, Twitter, etc. may wax and wane in popularity. Fans may migrate from one platform to another, and use multiple web services and online tool community participation.
But the trend is strong and irreversible.
I agree to a point, everything has a value and everything will live to its hype to a certain age. Anyway back to myspace and facebook, I agree with Duncan on Facebook being more appealing, MySpace just seems like a advertisement network and also I would like to network with bloggers and more adults which pretty much seems like impossible considering all the spam on my space. On the other hand Facebook seems crisp and very appealing and the recent surge in numbers is a proof.
What goes up must come down! MySpace and Facebook will only last for so long and so will others that come along. lately, I have been part of a new social networking site http://www.cre8buzz.com which will open its doors on Oct 7th. This site has taken a new route by using adults as their members, meaning bloggers and professionals with whom you can actually talk and have a good time relating to blogs and other matters. During the private beta testing I enjoyed my stay and am hoping more will join after the public launch. Anyways I had written a brief review on my blog about this and though I would share it here ( please not , this is not a shameless promotion as I am trying to point this site in relation to Duncan’s article and Stev Balmers statement regarding social networking site ) this site has taken a different approach and here is my review after being an active community member for over a month
http://www.worknplay.net/2007/.....-site.html
Zaid
as I said I personally think that Facebook will go the distance, but Ballmer is not wrong to question whether Facebook or similar sites are fads, because there have been plenty before them that were (geocities, Friendster etc..)
Where’s Fake Ballmer?!!!!! Er…..I mean yeah, the fad is on the websites, but not the social network aspect itself!
This story is also the top on http://www.techglutton.com/
I don’t get why every post in the past three days on TechCrunch needs to mention TechMeme. First it was Facebook and now TechMeme!
Ballmer is dismissive, to explain away the fact that Microsoft has not responded adequately to the social media trend that began in 1992 and is gaining that critical mass that is making it totally mainstream.
Microsoft hates missing a mainstream technology. Ballmer is sour grapesing it, and poo-pooing specific services.
Popularity of services waxes and wanes, but is that a reason to not jump in with a version like almost everyone else is? Microsoft is caught with it’s pants down, asleep at the switch. That’s all. And Ballmer is putting a positive spin on it.
i think there is a simple truth in the statement:
* when business objectives move in, users move out!
(the mage
i bet that if facebook was not *trying* to hard to turn itself into a viable business, then there was most likely going to be logevity… users and business are not on the same side of the fence…
google although it seems is an exception… it has only found a temporary balance… remember the negativity when you google modified their chinese image results so that on the google china images site when you search for “tiananmen square” you got happy pictures of people posing in the square and flowers… well, those feelings have not gone away… they made a business decision, the users hated it… they have reversed it “to a minor extent” … but give it some time - they will make more “business” decisions… and guess what… users will be encouraging any champion that will take on google as well!
well said mage
On Scoble’s argument; All my friends used to be on AIM, where are they now? Facebook will simply be around until something better comes around. And something more interactive, integrated, secure and useful will come around… I promise you that. There are folks out there right now looking at Facebook and seeing the many flaws and will build something better out of it.
And if many of yall hadn’t noticed, the Facebook platform sucks. The code sucks and the API sucks.
Just my two cents. : )
Balmer is a bloated idiot. Fbook’s growth is not coming from kids. It’s coming from adults. Why do you think the second biggest work network on Fbook is Msoft? Fbook is not going anywhere except up. Will buy what’s left of Yhoo within 5 years.
Same thing was said about Google and now look.
Yo Steve, keep thinking Facebook is just about their “technology”. Typical response from a person who keeps ignoring the fact that “social whatever” is growing and MSFT has no clue how to harness it.
“I can’t see the market shift, it REALLY can’t be happening. That’s a good strategy.
5Tacos
Duncan I totally agree that Ballmer is not wrong to question whether Facebook
or similar sites are fads. However I think that it’s a bit coincidental to say it
when Microsoft are thinking about buying a stake in the company
My bet is that Facebook will not go the distance in its present form.
I am kind of curious, in the aggregate, about how kids who are growing up with SN’ing will continue/change their usage patterns throughout the various stages of their life. For the most part, I think the long term is promising because they will continue to use it forever (and the generations after them, too). We know it’s pretty difficult to get 60 y/o’s into social networking, but if you started when you were 13 would you stop just because you turned 60?
In the short term, I think you just hear about a bunch of people like Balmer and me. We join it to check it out but don’t really care to take the effort to build and maintain our social network. However, I am smart enough to look around and see how it is effecting everyone else, they all love it.
I think ‘Ballmer gets it,’ but what Ballmer doesn’t get is the inability of social media platforms to monetize users.
His arguments are not betting against the internet, so much as looking to avoid irrational exuberance. Microsoft makes products that people pay money for and that people are locked into using with high switching costs (.doc). To then go and invest in a company such as Facebook that 1) does not monetize its site well and 2) has almost zero switching costs, would be considered insane in almost any other industry.
http://www.leveragingideas.com/?p=466
the Ballmer picture takes the cake!
A face only a mother could love:)
lol….the man knows how to run business with his witty stmts.
http://vidsonly.blogspot.com
Oh please people… this is from the same brain trust that brought us … ‘640k, that should be enough for anyone’. These retards can’t see beyond their soon-to-be-fantastic Zune. It takes no genius to know that anything to do with today’s hyper-active youth is but a passing fade… Facebook, pew! Whatz next please….
If this was Steve Jobs saying this half the people jumping on this with a negative would be raving about how he is right.
lets face it if its MS or a top MS employee saying it someone is always going to have a problem.
Yes of course its a fad and be honest people how many of you are getting real annoyed by the constant app spam already.
However I think the management team at Facebook are smart enough to keep it evolving and move with the times.
As far as Social networks being fads I don’t see it because humans have always had some form of social networks.
The question in regards to facebook is can anyone else actually enter this market. I think we currently have the yahoo’s and googles of the social networking sites now. The future of Social networks are verticals and platforms like Ning.
Maybe it’s not the app, but the combination of “where your friends are” and the API. Could it be why facebook is more than a fad.
Or maybe the intarwebs/browser is the platform and people drift from geocities, msn messenger, skype, twitter, myspace, facebook to the next cool thing.
Or maybe it’s in SecondLife
So much for the Facebook PR BS trying to pump and dump their valuation.
Ballmer is 100% right on this one. For anyone who was around in 1999, this is all very familiar … just take a look at the top ten web properties fro 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 … where are they now? What were the arguments used to justify their valuations? There is nothing new unde the sun.
These are fads, and anyone who is silly enough to be a buyer as opposed to a seller in this environment will regret it later.
You make a lot of sense in the article, analysing Ballmer’s point of view.
I don’t think facebook has legs at all. I’ve already begun using it less because I get spammed with crappy apps every single time I log on. It was great for awhile, finding people I hadn’t seen in years, etc. Unfortunately for Facebook, there is already a much more popular and useful social networking application. It’s called e-mail.
We’ve been through Friendster and Myspace, it’s just the nature of the game. The bigger Facebook gets, the less people will like it.
Ballmer is right and so is the article. Facebook is nothing but craze and will fade over the years, unless they fork out new services that could make people stay.
Facebook… the great time waster.
Hope this site doesn’t get sued for such an unflattering picture of Steve. Gosh.
These guys don’t understand the Internet at all.
Ballmer IS right. Facebook IS a fad.
I’ve used it for a year and DEACTIVATED my account. Many of my friends are following me and deactivating their accounts.
Don’t waste your life on Facebook. Go get REAL friends. Go do REAL stuff.
Saying Facebook is a fad is the same as saying iPods and MP3s are a fad. Neither will be permanent, they will shift and change. But the social impacts that they leave on our culture are indisputable. Steve Ballmer just doesn’t get it.
Any digital space that is capturing huge audiences has value. The question is how to monetize the value and how quickly can the value be flushed when a competitive and more compelling offer arrives. Microsoft likes to invest in businesses that have barriers to entry and sustainable competitive advantage. They are waiting patiently to find such a business online. They prefer to copy as oppose to purchase. As soon as they see it, Ballmer will pounce as he is looking for a third major profit center for Microsoft. Microsoft has already announced they have a team that is working on copying google.
Seriously. Even if you grant him that social networking is a fad, his reasoning is incredibly flawed. Social networks are only popular with the kids? That is an intrinsically wrong statement. Linked in is popuplated by professionals of all ages, Facebook is skewing heavily older. It’s simply a stupid thing to say at this point.
And if he believes that this is a fad that’s going down, why try to invest at an incredibly inflated valuation for facebook? Either he’s stupid or he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, no?
“Facebook’s backend could be duplicated over time”?? Are you seriously trying to make that point? Then so could Ebay’s. And they’ve tried. How they’ve tried. It isn’t simply the written lines of code, it’s the experience running a site of that nature and the evolution of the code to accomadate that. Not to mention the lockin of simply being a gigantic community.
Please.
Check your comments; I have been telling you guys that this whole social networking thig is a fad for weeks! Check it out. Now do you believe that I am not Steve Ballmer not pretending to not be me?
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
“Saying Facebook is a fad is the same as saying iPods and MP3s are a fad”
What kind of a person compares a social networking site to music listening devices?
Music listening devices such as walkmans, CD players, MP3 players have never been “fads”. People like listening to music on-the-go and always will.
Facebook, on the other hand, is a TOTAL WASTE OF YOUR LIFE.
BTW; I have never liked that picture of me, I have never looked good in baby blue shirts, please change it!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
All websites that rely on user generated content for their value are inherently going to be fads. That’s why Facebook is a fad, but Google’s search isn’t. It’s why YouTube is a fad but Hotmail isn’t. That doesn’t mean Facebook will go away once the buzz dies, it just means that the insane valuation of the company is just that - insane - because it is based on the current level of hype which not remotely sustainable.
Geocities did not provide a way for the lay person to communicate with content as Facebook does. It was mainly for nerds that wanted to learn HTML rather than regular people. Because of this, Geocities could not nearly provide ‘most’ of the stuff Facebook provides, as the entire value Facebook provides is communicating and congregating with my friends online.
Welcome to 2009. Do we still think the same as what we thought in late 2007? Facebook users now have a different complaint every month; last month it was that Facebook was selling all our private photos. This month it’s that Facebook has changed the interface and (I haven’t seen it) people just hate change. Next week it’ll be that Facebook sells all our data to Microsoft/NSA/Coca Cola/Google and our private lives aren’t private (oops).
You know what? Despite all this, Facebook is still doing alright. Feel free to correct me here.
Even though Facebook is a money-hungry, greedy, dehumanising machine that sells back to us what we already had in the real world, it’s doing just fine.
Will it be around forever? Hell no. GMail was a Hotmail killer. It looks like we have to wait for a Facebook killer now to level out the playing field a bit.
Email is not a fad.
Social networking is not a fad (it’s older than email and older than faxes)…
Facebook is a fad, just like Hotmail. But a nice, long, persevering one
That’s what I think, as an ignoramus reflecting from a year and a half down the road.
Am I right? Am I wrong?