[cbozeman]

Facebook isn't successful because of content.

Facebook is successful because of its ease of use comparative to Google+. Facebook's genius was that it was designed to be easy enough for the masses to use. Google+ was clearly designed by engineers, for engineers.

There's your problem right there, but you got it right in the second part of your post.

> Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the way. Good content is enabled by good tech.

That was the crux of the issue. Steve Jobs understood this. Its why my Mom was able to grasp an iPhone interface far easier and sooner than the Android phone she had had for years before. It still blows my fucking mind how anyone can find the iPhone more intuitive, but I guess that's because I grew up in the 80s and 90s, with 80s and 90s computers as a kid, so you had to learn the technical underpinnings somewhat in order to even operate those machines.

Ease of use = more content.

[tomnipotent]

> Facebook isn't successful because of content.

Of course Facebook is successful because of content. Do you think people keep going back not to view photos or posts of others?

[cbozeman]

You could share photos on MySpace.

You could share photos on Friendster.

You could share photos on <insert a dozen dead platforms here>.

Its ease of use. It always has been.