Sean Parker, a managing partner at Founder’s Fund, gave an interesting talk today at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. The key to it is simple: Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and eBay will dominate the web going forward. One company of note that won’t? Google.
Why? Parker believes we’re shifting from the first phase of the Internet, which was dominated by what he calls “information services” These are companies like Google and Yahoo. But next up to dominate the web will be the “network services” like Facebook and Twitter, he believes.
To be clear, he thinks Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people, he said.
He went on to talk a bit about the social networking space, which is significant because he helped found Facebook.
Parker noted that data portability is a red herring. Data portability is easily solved by converters and adapters, he said. Facebook has of course been criticized for being much more closed with regards to its data than many of the other social networks. In Parker’s view, it would seem that not only is this not a bad thing, but it will help them dominate, because it will force other users to join them. That’s something that I would bet a lot of people believe, but it’s interesting to hear someone like Parker be ballsy enough to say that.
He went on to say that Friendster was not a fad, it failed because of the failure to scale, not because of poor product execution. So how did MySpace fall? It was a “systematic product failure,” said Parker. And Facebook was smart to launch with the college campus networks. “College students didn’t have MySpace accounts, so we went for them,” Parker said. It was all about tightly spun networks at colleges, and that helped Facebook spread naturally and virally.
Parker also talked a bit about why it’s not always the best products that win. Craigslist, MySpace, AIM and eBay all were poorly designed or executed, yet they did well. This was because their networks were strong enough to overcome their bad products, Parker said.
Also of note was that one of Parker’s slides talked about the few networks Google does own, like Orkut. That slide seemed to imply that Foursquare is owned by Google, which of course is not true. Google did buy Foursquare co-founder’s Dennis Crowley’s former location company, Dodgeball, but they have since killed it. So in Parker’s view, Google is actually weaker than he thinks.
Update: Parker has written to let us know that he did, in fact, mean Dodgeball rather than Foursquare.
Update 2: Here’s the full slide deck of Parker’s presentation.
And the picture proves we have to take him very, very seriously!
hahahaha…. +1…hilarious..
Yes, I’m sure Bilbo Baggins over there knows what he’s talking about. Facebook and Twitter are fads. If you rewind a little bit you’ll see that people said the same thing about MySpace until something better came along. Google is here to stay, Frodo is completely out of his element.
Even with possible job cuts here where I work the Bilbo Baggins comment made me lol
Agreed. Google isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Well, wait for the big Tsunami WAVE to wash us all away.
You’ll see. Parker isn’t totally wrong, but he forgets that Google is big in the people business too. Think of Gmail, think of Wave in 2 to 5 years. Besides, what are people businesses worth without a stable network services base? You don’t want to end up like Twitter with daily outages, will you? People won’t accept this over a longer period.
smart guy…..but something very Will Ferrell about him lol
lmao!
pictures dont lie!!
I don’t like people who will not take someone seriously because of the way they look.
Like it or not, first impressions drive most social interactions.
date much?
Ha ha
Awesome!
Great points !! Connecting people is definitely much more powerful than data aggregation. In essence all this tech is to add value to our very-human daily lives.
We will be ruled by the all powerful Twitter… until they run out of money because they do not have a business model for a positive revenue stream,,, except for fools (aka: investors) who part with their money. (can you say deadpool?)
hummm… lost respect for Founder’s Fund. (He sounds like a recent college grad or my 16 year old daughter)
be friend the fools, dude
We now have user controlled profiles for people to control their online identities. Everyone can create a blog and profile who wants to. It used to be that you needed to be a programmer or purchase hosting, but now you can do it for free. But the pull of connection is still through e-mail, IM, and pictures.
I think Myspace failed because of branding. It was too rocknroll for its own good. With the Dateline specials it really became too extreme for the over 40 crowd.
Wise wisdom… I will put your quote on my frig.
Google is better for porn than facebook.
Yeah, but like the guy said, what good is all that info (even if it’s about friends) if it’s in a closed-off system like Facebook?
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of joining web sites or networks that limit what I can do with the information I add or want access to.
Plus, Facebook is FAR from a perfect site. If I had to choose between it and Google and use only one site, I’d choose Google every time, hands down.
“…Facebook is FAR from a perfect site…” yes I just left facebook today for ever, it’s horrible the bad impact it have in relationships :/
no i’m a single and facebook have a hand on it
Twitter and Facebook have their identities wrong. They are not building “Major media properties” as they state. They are communications platforms. Which is great. Communications has always been a 10X larger business than media and alot more sticky.
Exactly. But communications companies make their money by charging users, say, like the telephone network, which is a much larger social network than Facebook.
the future of connecting people is dependent on “niche location based data aggregation networks.”
facebook is the largest whitepages social playground on the net. they are not the yellowpages of social. doubt they have the branding capacity to be a one stop shop social destination. one size social does not fit all.
Twitter? Seriously? Facebook should be offended that twitter’s being put in the same category.
i agree, facebook almost has the same amount monthly traffic as google & yahoo. Twitter is nowhere close.
I still dont understand how twitter intend to generate revenue, facebook on the other hand is already revenue positive
ROFLMAO hahahahahaha.
good analysis, could become reality very soon.
No way. You seem to have forgotten about Google Wave. Once that’s fully implemented the way I suspect it will be used, Google’s grip on information handling will be extended to communication between people.
BTW, we’re talking about Google here. It’s diversified in the sense that they provide tons of services both online and offline. Facebook is one site. Moreover, Google employs the best programmers in the world, it’s one of the greatest places to work, and they possess the largest advertising network in the world.
Oh, and let’s not forget about Google Android. Computers, devices, and phones will all be running this. Facebook connects people but people will be accessing it via Google Chrome and Android.
I forgot about Youtube, but I don’t really know if that counts since Youtube is basically owned by Google.
Andriod is really nothing more than Yet Another Linux Distro with a bunch of free apps pre-loaded. No real innovation here, and this is why is has less than 1% market share. Microsoft Windows 7 ALREADY had a larger share and is the number one most pre-ordered title of all time according to Amazon. Let’s not count this innovation team out folks.
Well let’s see, would you rather pre-order Windows 7 for $50 or wait til yesterday and pay $130? It has nothing to do with innovation–People are just jumping on a good deal.
Funny how you compare Windows 7 to Android, but I guess that’s because Microsoft’s mobile division has been a competitive failure.
Agreed, I do think Google will still be on top. Millions of people make their living off of adsense (such as this blog), and Google offers so many other services then just a search engine.
I agree Kevin. I’m not sure that Wave will be some instant hit out of the gates…but I find the potential of Wave to be much more exciting than anything Facebook has done or is planning to do. The only worthwhile thing FB has done recently is acquire Friendfeed…and like most acquisitions, NOTHING has come of it. (Big shocker!)
As long as Marissa Mayer is at Google, I will expect a continued lack of practical innovation.
Wave is little more than real-time IM. Easily copied.
Wave could turn into their “true” social network competitor. I mean, real-time emails aren’t going to replace standard email communication (imagine the workplace disasters with that!) but I could see it taking over what Twitter/Friendfeed are doing w/ real-time updates for users and their friends. Plus, while Facebook’s brand is pretty strong, Google’s brand and image in the tech world is much more powerful. Once Wave is 100% open and all those Gmail/Google Account holders have immediate access to it, I could see it becoming big relatively quickly.
Google is already feeling like the MSFT of the web. Big giant, good at two things (search and apps) but thought they try to touch everything, no one cares, its not cool to use a Google social site or music site. Take video, for ex., Google had their own offering, but complete fail in the race against YouTube.
my guess, twitter will be pointless before 2 years.
Agree with mostly everything but EBay? There traffic has been in decline for years. Unless they come up with something new I don’t think that can happen.
I believe the Paypal side of ebay is really what will be part of the next generation of powerhouses. While internet auctions are dying, paypal is doing more and more to make it easier for developers to use them for payments. If they can power the payments systems behind the apps and other parts of these powerhouses they will be just as powerful.
eBay auctions for small businesses is actually fairly strong. I personally know of one small operation pulling in $120,000.00 a month of ebay.
PayPal needs to build new services and apps, and forget its restrictive branding, but focusing on total control over running your small business. PayPal ordering, shipping, etc.
It’s a merchant service, and it’s a good one – but they need to start innovating.
The funny part is just before this article was posted TechCrunch also reported about Ebays decline.
This guy is a visionary! give it a year or two and his choices will make better sense.
Very interesting take on things. It does appear to me that Facebook (even moreso than Twitter) is becoming a cornerstone of many people’s interactions online.
I thought AOL was going to rule the world???
hahahahaha!
Google offers “informational services” and “network services” as well. I don’t think Google is going to die so soon. Every company has a few bad products. Google does have a lot of talent and ideas, and I think it will be quite sometime to beat Google on the web.
Don’t think so. Google may be not visible like Twitter or Facebook, but it is and will be THE platform.
Parker raises some interesting points — I’d say craigslist is actually fairly well designed though.
Twitter and FB are influential; however, not at all profitable.
His talk seems more like a biased sales pitch as opposed to analysis.
Agreed on Craigslist… they do not need the flash and wow to make them marketable. Generic layout is perfect for their model. Maybe if they unnecessarily spent a couple million on html developers he would be happy. (ref: new CNN site)
ditto on Twit and FB
nats on – “…sales pitch…”
Nice Facebook photo.
Dude hasn’t heard of Google Wave.
And besides, I’m pretty sure Google can buy FB / Twitter before they become dangerous.
“Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people”
Is he serious?
Which of these has more commercial value? – you decide:
a) Google connects the world’s consumers with world’s businesses.
Will businesses will pay big bucks to have consumers connect to them? – Yes!
b) Facebook connects people to their friends and relatives. Will Mary pay big bucks to be poked by Uncle Bob or any of her 1213 friends? errr No.
+1
LOL. True. +1
You are the voice of reason.
thank you for regulating
totally agree!
But what happens when all the world’s business have a presence on facebook? And then those consumers, who already spend so much time on facebook connecting with friends, have no reason to leave facebook (and go to google) to also get connected with businesses/products they support?
+1
People use facebook and google because they trust them. If facebook starts letting every company have access to personal information you intended to only be available to your friends, then they will die quickly.
Business history is filled with marketing mistakes where they piss off their customers through invasion of privacy. All it will take is one big mistake on facebook and it will be game over.
Advertising is all about connecting consumers w/ companies they may not yet have considered. If a consumer is explicitly connecting to a company’s FB page as a visitor or friend, that consumer has already developed a prior relationship w/ that company. That’s where search and other forms of brand advertising come into play.
thank you for being the voice of reason. you and jim for best answers and also the guy who referenced the hobbit. i think this is one of the better tc comments section i’ve read in a while.
absolutely agree, Google is going to wipe the floor with facebook twitter etc.
It is so sad to see Sean Parker being valued so highly…He is smoking crack IMHO…Google is going to lose its dominance? So Android will not take over as an OS…
Twitter? … Really?…really sean?
Seriously? Because Google doesn’t have the brand name to create the next big thing, right?
Maybe if Google bought “Search.com” then the world would take them seriously.
they did one better and replaced the damn word.
Definitely, the times they are a changing as Bob Dylan would have us believe! Google have a credible portfolio of products, services and brand strength though! I’m sure the direction of the Web will feature Google’s influence for a long time yet! When Google becomes self-aware the Web won’t matter anymore…
eBay? Isn’t that Web 0.5? eBay has had its day and will not dominate the web. Traffic and overall importance has been on the decline for years, they are guilty of the same crime as MySpace – not adapting. Additionally, they do not connect people the way Parker seems to imply.
Twitter is a fad; and I agree, Facebook should almost be offended to be in the same category. Twitter has helped us transition into real-time search and provided real-time breaking news, but look for that same information to be found on Facebook as Twitter fades into the distance.
eBay is becoming less and less relevant with every passing year for me as a consumer. And this is coming from a guy who has probably bought and sold things in over 1000+ transactions over the years since 2001. If I need anything other than a really hard to find, out of production item, I just go to Amazon now. I’d expect most people to do the same also. And eBay’s treatment of sellers and feedback over the past year or two has majorly hurt their image online as well. eBay won’t ever go away…but I don’t think it’ll ever turn itself around unless it reverts to its early days.
Interesting that Sean mentions eBay and not Amazon. Amazon has done a lot in the last few years in the “network services” area. Can’t think of anything new eBay has done other than buying and selling Skype. And still owning PayPal.
What’s his definition of dominate? Page views? Monetization? Mind share?
i don’t think he knows either…
I agree. Dominate what exactly? I use both FB & Google…a lot… but for very different things.
I just set up Facebook Connect on TechCrunch and I’m interested in seeing what happens to this Comment I’m typing right now. Will it automatically show up in my FB news feed? (That seems a bit scary to me… because what if I forget that I’m connected to FB and I type a Comment on TechCrunch that I don’t want shared to my FB friends?!)
deres a skip option tht actually wrks
I think I agree with Mr. Parker’s perspective but it seems based in the perspective that Google as a static entitle that cannot become ‘networked’. We all have google accounts, we’re all logged into it all the time. For it to become “networked” wouldn’t it be as simple as linking our accounts with those people we’ve e-mailed and playing the “your friend, Mr. Holmes searched for _____, you might also be interested in _____” card?
Secondly, google is a powerhouse because it provides useful services. Facebook and Twitter (like the Friendster, MySpace, and Slashdot of the past) provide some degree of functionality but ultimately require brand loyalty and a big and vibrant userbase. Sure they seem unstoppable now, but like their predecessors, I believe this is only until something new comes along.
Facebook’s advertising is terrible; by which I mean the ads on Facebook – I have never clicked a single one. They seem to be all in a similar couple of categories, if they are targeted then the date used is poor as they are rarely of interest to me … I haven’t seen the relevant data, but wonder how easy it will be for Facebook to keep the advertising revenue coming when the advertisers come to realize that Facebook users (like me) don’t click ads.
I tend not to click on ads in my GMAIL either, but in google searches I DO, because by searching for something, I actually want to buy a product of find a service.
This is why Google will remain king. Social Networking isn’t a contest to search. Twitter search? It may be interesting to a point, but all you get from searches it is what Twitter users are writing in short tweets; that’s limited. It cannot compete with Google.
Interesting. I held a similar opinion to yours. But I’ve gotten a positive ROI on my latest $100 spend. We’ll see if I can scale that.
Facebook advertising is famous for being completely useless. The only people making money with it, are the guys pushing rebill offers, the ones that get you a “free trial” than slam you with a monthly fee.
eBay? Are you fucking joking? eBay is the most out of touch non-web2.0 company I’ve ever seen. They aren’t ruling shit.
Rediculous, it’ll never happen. Period.
Twitter is overhyped, Facebook is useful but not a critical part of my web experience. Google is.
He want to reconsider eBay in the list as eBay has not been increasing sales for some time.
I couldn’t disagree more. Social networking is useful for connecting people but I think social networks as a dominant form of internet entertainment (ie. going to Facebook for the apps) is a fad. Sure, the net is about information *and* entertainment, but entertainment does not have to be based around soical networking.
This guy is a retard. Since when does Google not “connect” people? Is Gmail, GTalk, Google Voice, and Google Wave not connecting people?
Right on. Google is penetrating every moment of our lives — not just the hours we dedicate to online social activities. Google is penetrating productivity, voice, mobile, etc… from the very bottom levels (down to the OS). Though I may not like it, Google will have an unparalleled ability to track consumer behavior and tailor advertising to our individual idiosyncrasies and interests. Perhaps FB can play the game too — but on its current course it will never rival Google.
Arrogance is the short fall of many a great minds….Mr Parker is no exception. What I think he is failing to recognize is Google’s ability to adapt.
I do not believe in this day and age anyone can, without unfounded arrogance of one’s own creation (as seen here), make such claims.
Someone should give him a copy of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. He has achieved alot, but he’s still young. He can fall still at any time.
Agreed man! Google is adapting and is one of the reasons why they’re unshakable.
“To be clear, he thinks Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people, he said.”
Uh… that’s assuming we can FIND the connecting people – and it is for that very reason that Google has a phenomenal opportunity to encroach on the Facebook’s of the world. Google is trying to be the 411 of ALL information – and they are aggressively moving into the world of real-time integration — how long is it before searching Google for your friends yields status updates with links in and beyond Facebook and Twitter?
As for Data Portability being a “red-herring” – WOW! Data Portability is not just about technology, but about process, rights, and mindset. Without that so-called red-herring, the investment you make in creating, refining, updating, and enhancing all of your data would be “owned” by someone else.
–Steve Repetti
http://www.radwebtech.com
and… DataPortability.org board member
dude i was thinking about this yesterday when i was reading the tc news about bing and goog partnering with twatter and fb. i was like you know what google should have done early on (which is probably still possible now if you put in your query right) is make it available to search for twitter stream or fb stream (like how some rss stuff shows up on google), straight on google so that i don’t actually have to go on any of those sites to. they can pay twitter or fb if they want to but they don’t have to because if they allow their bots to troll these sites because we are all looking for realtime indoformation/connect, it will be beneficial for google, and clicks for these other sites, but eventually it would cut down on the clicks to twatter and fb. i was thinking about this a couple weeks ago and figured that google should make my searching for twitter updates easier. oh well. it will happen. i just have to have patience, because google will end up owning the world.
Google’s Latitude has the potential to connect people using geolocation. Maybe forming the next meeting wave for connecting people
I find searchable information so, so, so, so, so, so, so much more valuable than what John Q Idiot is yelling at me from Twitter.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Twitter. Facebook is OK as well. But if Einstein were alive today, I’d still be searching for information from indexed text he wrote, and not what he had for breakfast this morning.
you know when i was reading what mg wrote, i didn’t get what sean parker was saying. i understood it but i didn’t get it because it seems like he’s missing some points and i don’t understand it since he does come up with some otherwise decent points as he starts to build and support an argument/viewpoint. but the thing is that when i was reading it, i thought the same thing you did in that i actually like search because it’s valuable to my life. it’s an integral part of my life. before google or search engines and before internet connection was so widely available i did my own searches. i search lots of things everyday. i don’t do it all the time looking for specific answers but for information. just like robin wauters admitted to being a news junkie a couple days ago, i would say he and i and many others who use the net, the people on this site, the people in this world are all/most actually content/information consumers. i search because i like it and i’ve used many search engines because i’m young enough to get tired of things and go with the next fad/trends/be an early adopter, but so far google has been it for me. i think they could do with some tweaking of their search results page, but they’ll get there since they are providiing multiple choices. i don’t believe it when i hear professors making the case for search making people dumb because i don’t think it’s true. it’s just that the way things were done has changed. we still consume information, but now we probably have it intertwined with our desires for fulfillment since we want everything now and on our time, our demands, but it’s up to each person to search and consume in their own way and then discern what they will from what they are absorbing. yeah we are being used by goolge but we are also actively using google and making our demands known to them and the good thing is that they aren’t too walled in. they care about making money but they understand that they won’t be making the money they are without their consumers because they make products for consumers as much as they do for companies. i’m glad something like google came along. thanks GOOG.
google is too young too smart and too integrated to loose it
and i have great expectation from ‘wave’, people will get it just say it’s email 2.0!
I can see Facebook dominating. However, Twitter is a niche site that gets a lot of publicity for its small market-size and web traffic.
I doubt that Google will become irrelevant. They will evolve with the market. The culture of the company encourages innovation and exploration of new ideas.
The red herring is not data portability…but data penetration..all the networks are just skimming the surface of the massive populations of Brazil, India, China now. which are growing at 5%, 7%, and 10% respectively. The issues of scalability of facebook and twitter which get a lot of talk have yet to hit the sky.Whichever network or data service understands the market shifts would emerge as the winner. Analysts from the developed world keep turning a blind eye to the fact tht “Internet is all about people”, and these countries hv exactly tht..
“look out…. frog of the well, theres a whole world ouutside”–some wise ancient oriental guy,,maybe greek…
“collecting data is less valuable than connecting people”
How does these two compare? It’s like saying your t-shirt is more valuable then your pants. Collecting data is very valuable and it will be, connecting people is too (even though it’s just picking up).
right… collecting data is so much less valuable. That’s why google is the BIGGEST MONETARY BEHEMOTH in the world with a steady profit.
Where is common sense? And where is MySpace? too funny
No way. This kid may want attention because no tech will believe that.
Google has indexed most of the internet. In fact you don’t find people on twitter or facebook without it (mostly).
He wrote all this for nothing
He’s still playing catch-up for internet ads by inflating his users value.
I saw Sheryl do basically the same thing; trying to inflate the significance of engagement and mindshare.
The most amusing part is that they’re in the same space as Youtube so their efforts (and Hulu’s) to attract big brands to the internet with random recycled marketing concepts win for Google too.
Meanwhile Google has already moved on into the enterprise market and disconnected world by leveraging Android, Google Voice and Google Maps with poor Yext’s business model.
“Facebook has of course been criticized for being much more closed with regards to its data than many of the other social networks. In Parker’s view, it would seem that not only is this not a bad thing, but it will help them dominate, because it will force other users to join them.”
This is what both frightens me and believes that it will lead to FB’s demise if it were true.
Every large force that has tried to lead by having a closed system, instead of an open one, has eventually died.
It’s the same reasons why capitalism and democracy wins over state run enterprises and communism. Having all the control centralized eventually leads to complacence and stagnation. People eventually want more whether it’s liberties or innovation. There are always better ideas that the competition can come up with.
This is the core reason why Silicon Valley has been such fertile ground for innovation. I can see why, form a business perspective, they would want complete dominance but it really would be bad for technology and people as a whole if they maintained this monopoly forever. Same goes for Google.
Well, Facebook is not truly closed. That’s what the developer’s platform is for.
Dude, we’re talking about data liberation, i.e. I want an API, or a CSV or a Zip file to gather all my data in Facebook.
While it’s neat to look up info on people you know, more people use the internet to find/transfer information in general…and because of that, Google’s dominance will probably be like Microsoft’s in the OS area and never go away or drop too significantly.
If anything’s a fad, it would be Facebook or Twitter. Twitter can’t scale because it’s whole point – short, meaningless burst of info – can’t be built upon without it turning into a full-featured IM or RSS program. As for Facebook, if the downfall of Friendster, Myspace and a bunch of other wannabee social networks isn’t proof enough, anyone who thinks it won’t be replaced by a better Social Network is a crazy person.
In 5 years, we’ll all be thinking, “Facebook was soooo 2007/2008.”
im so glad you wrote that, so I can just say “yeah, what Scott C said”
Facebook is for all the people who didn’t use MySpace back in the day.
Twitter is lame, too small of a nitch to do much
Everyone, uses Google, and with Chrome, Android, and Gmail, everyone will touch google when they go on the net
it might not be a fad if they continue to use facebook connect, etc…
Connecting people is great but they aren’t the end of everything. But this guy is insanely overeaching.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Google bought facebook.
Referencing data quickly is the single most important attribute of the internet. Facebook/twitter is made possible by Google and other search engines. They will never outgrow the foundation.
+ 100
i already think of fb as so 2003 or whenever it started/when the seniors at my highschool and my older siblings (and their friends) were raving about fb…like how we used to rave about myspace and how some people still rave over icq or aim or hi 5 or all these things. i can’t even believe what this guy is saying. i mean it’s entirely plausible that google will go bust in the future or will not dominate although it already is, but i guess that will just mean that all the minds and creativity at google will shutdown sometime. i mean i’m not willing to bet on his predictions or the way he sees the future but i don’t think anyone should be betting on what he is saying. i think all these networks are fads because if someone can create a better one with more appeal and better integrating people will jump ship, just like if there is a better google people will also jump ship. so i’ve never called fb a fad, but i don’t learn anything on fb, just like i don’t learn anything on twitter. if i do it’s very minimal in comparison to the amount of crap information i can seperate out of the noise. i an a very avid searcher. i search for everything and i know exactly what i’m doing. before i was searching online i would search through dictionaries, books, images, anything. anything i could read, view, hear, touch, anything because i am a big information consumer. google has just applied changes that was already happening and made them better. sometimes i don’t even have to search for something because i already know the answer, but i do anyways and i go through the results because i’m looking for information, good, bad, useful, useless, etc…random. i don’t fb or twatter because i haven’t reached the point where i feel like i need to impart my crap onto others.
Oh, and show me how the fix the very slugish facebook moments when ever you try and do ANYTHING. Oh, and show me the revnue stream that enables Facebook to pay for the fix the very slugish facebook moments when ever you try and do ANYTHING.
Nice guess. Archive this and come back in 2 years.
Unfortunately, when you notice that his company is investing in several social media comapnies including Facebook, i does make you think that he is likely well incented to “think” this way…regardless of reality.
Completely disagree with the article. Google is a lot more than just a search engine and does a lot more than just collect data. How will ebay dominate the web? What about YouTube? Also, Wave, Android, Chrome, Chrome OS, Gmail, Google Voice, Latitude and possibly even an actual Google phone. Google is involved with everything thats related to the internet and has a lot more money than facebook or twitter.
considering his connection with facebook, it’s hard to not think that he’s seriously biased….
+1000
+4000
I think he’s lost it. Google makes more money in a month then facbeook does in a year…
i’m not even looking at this from a money perspective, although it boggles my mind how twitter doesn’t make money, or how come he didn’t even mention amazon, but i think after reading this post a couple of times i have to agree with you guys and just go back to what i said in my previous comment about how he is missing something. i mean he’s not blind and he is alive so he must know that google is one of THE companies of this decade, this generation, etc…
i’m looking at this purely from a service factor and the fact that i don’t understand how he thinks google doesn’t have a network (blogger), or that if it does what makes him think fb is better and in what ways is it better than google or linkd in or whatever. what makes him think google isn’t connected to the world, to people, isn’t about communicating with firends, businesses, people, etc…and what makes him think that there’s networking is more integral than search, or information, communication, etc…google is search primarily, as we all hear schmidt say all the time, and it is, but google is much more than search. it is search but it’s not all search. it’s already a large giant and it’s going to continue because whereas different methods/means come out for all of us to network, search is here to stay…until consumption dies.
I like this guy, clear speech
I agree when he say:
“To be clear, he thinks Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people, he said. “
I thought myspace was more valuable. AOL too. Netscape….
What happened to Napster again?
Facebook bored me within a week. Twitter? Blah. I need raw data…not digital networking. Once Google takes over the government, they’re going to take away Mr. Parker’s mojo and make him shave his head.
it’s funny how everyone wants to hear predictions knowing full well that no one can predict the future. however, there are companies out there that may indeed pulverize facebook / twitter in the near future. one thing the internet has taught us is the half life of successful companies is fleeting. i remember when AOL was insurmountable, now they are so radioactive, TW is dying to get rid of them. creative destruction. like leisure suits and bad haircuts, facebook too may pass.
dont forget parachute pants.
Man this guy is spot on. Anyway, time to go Google more pictures of my next Android phone.
I’m not sure if facebook will sustain its popularity for a decade. Network services are, in my opinion, trendy. Like when myspace came out for the first time, people loved it. However, the trend phased out and here’s a new trend “facebook” came out.
This network services such as facebook and myspace existed long ago and they were really popular in south korea or japan. And on top of that those companies in south korea or japan made a huge profits by selling online goods. It was the WEB that everybody went to. However, they are not that popular anymore because web users moved onto next trend. This is what’s happening in the State that already happened in south korea or japan.
It’s like a fashion trend. One day 70’s style gets popular. Another day 80’s style gets popular.
So my guess is that facebook and twitter’s life span is less than 3 yrs considering how fast they became so popular and how fast trend phase out in general.
Google – DeadPool next year.
getting ready for the connected age by consuming data.
Yeah, rrrright. Kids: Facebook, Adults: Search.
People will burn out on being AS socialially networked as they are now.
thats true only FACEBOOK APPLE EBAY AND TWITTER dominates the web..not GOOGLE . Because GOOGLE is entirely occupying web and in few years they are going to build their own global network ( may be GOOGLE NET) they have sponsors , they have money, they have smart employees. thats it , people might then have options, INTERNET or GOOGLE NET.
Funny that Apple is so popular when there are many other products better and cheaper than apple. hats off to American marketing strategies. thanks for developing that great unsatisfactory feelings in people. like many think only if they have APPLE they are best.