[selmnoo]

Why. Why must you do this. Why must you dismiss articles on hackneyed grounds and kill the chance for an interesting discussion about the nature and direction of social technologies.

I thought this article was very interesting, it brought to light several factual points, and several not-heard-before insights -- e.g., I thought this in particular was very true and interesting:

    This is why social networks, like Google+ (where I 
    worked for one year), are struggling even more than 
    Facebook to get a foothold in the future of social 
    networking. They are betting on last year’s fashion

I'm surprised it wasn't Google that made an offer on Snapchat, since it's normally quite forward-looking. But then again, social has never been Google's forte has it.

[baddox]

> Seriously, why do people waste time writing these types of stories?

> Why. Why must you do this. Why must you dismiss articles on hackneyed grounds and kill the chance for an interesting discussion about the nature and direction of social technologies.

For the same reason. People like being perceived by others as contrarian or controversial, and people like perceiving themselves to be most clever/insightful/prescient than the next guy.

[triptychs]

It is rumored and further "confirmed"[0][1] that Google did offer to buy Snapchat for $4bn, in an effort to outbid Facebooks $3bn.

0. http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/15/5106950/google-snapchat-4...

1. "Confirmed" in quotes because Valleywag cites an unnamed source, and I typically find Valleywag, and Gawker Media on a whole, dubious and not entirely worthy of trust. However, this may have been more solidly confirmed elsewhere as well.

[MichaelGG]

Wow. At $4BN, Google could offer over $100 to every Snapchat user. That's sort of insane.

Like offering $6BN to Groupon - They could give away $5 million a day to companies using Google Offers for three years.

Obviously smarter-than-me people are behind these deals, but I just can't figure out how they make sense.

[yaeger]

Okay then, here is a discussion topic.

The author mentions that teens see Facebook as a utensil and not as something "cool" anymore.

Okay, fine, but how does that predict the end of facebook? If facebook becomes a utensil, a utensil that a good chunk of grownups still continue to use no less, why would that mean the end of facebook?

The author further talks about the 70s and 80s and things that were cool. Great, but if he stated that teens see facebook as a utensil, what does "cool" have to do with anything? If we stay with the 70s and 80s statement, do you know what other utensils we had in the 70s and 80s? Cars. Cars are utensils as a mode of transportation but also they are an outlet for some people to show the world who they are. What I mean is, we still drive cars even though we had them in the 70s and 80s. They just look different as technology and consumer demands have changed over time.

So, there is no reason why facebook would go down just because teens currently don't see it as "cool" anymore. As long as it is useful to manage your private contacts, and as long as it adapts to people's changing demands it can go on.

In short, were facebook on its way out, there would have to be one new "cool" thing to replace it. It is not enough to just have something similar but without users like g+. And if such a thing emerges, facebook still isn't doomed right away. They would just now have a reason why they maybe should listen to their users a little more. Regarding thins like privacy settings etc. As long as they don't have a competitor, they can pretty much do whatever they like as people don't really have an alternative. Should we start seeing teens leaving in droves for new hip platform X, I think facebook would recognize this and we would start seeing some more user friendly changes.

[Kequc]

> social has never been Google's forte has it.

It hasn't been anybody's forte except for facebook by that standard. On the contrary g+ is far better than facebook by any measurement you choose to use, it isn't missing anything. A supportive user base mostly absent only in the minds of people vehemently dying for it to be absent. These people who repeat the idea that using google for social networking is the worst thing they've ever heard or thought about. The technology is still sound, meanwhile.

[Turing_Machine]

"On the contrary g+ is far better than facebook by any measurement you choose to use, it isn't missing anything."

The G+ API sucks. Bad. It might as well not even be there for all the use you can get out of it.

Do a serious comparison of the Facebook Graph API to what passes for an API on G+, then tell us again that it isn't missing anything.

[stefan_kendall]

I tried google plus once. It was a barrage of information, so I closed the tab never to return. The software ain't good.

[zem]

i think another reason both facebook and g+ are in decline is that they're insisting on the whole "our way or the highway" approach - g+'s real names crap, and facebook's relentless publicisation of every move you make, are unpopular with tons of people, and even if those people reluctantly stay on because that's where all their friends are (in facebook's case, at least - g+ threw away any chance at stickiness by being high-handed before people were hooked), their engagement with the platform is diminished.