It took me years to convince some of my mates to join Facebook and some are still only just getting used to it. If I was to tell them they have to move now, they'd just give up altogether. My entire family is on Facebook, and Facebook, unlike MySpace at the time, is thriving rather than struggling. It has double the amount of updates as it did the previous year and has more games being developed for it than ever before, so companies are dedicating time towards it as well. Such a large investment towards a single site is not something that would blow over in the wind. What did MySpace have going for it when Facebook came out? Pretty much the music scene and nothing else. Everything was clumsy, it was full of awful personalisation which only added to it's already awful coding which added to it's already awful load times. Facebook doesn't suffer from any of these things, although sometimes the coding can cause issues on some browsers - but nothing significant like there was with MySpace. And it still loads fast anyway.Originally Posted by Bastian
Er... huh? EVERYONE switched from Friendster to MySpace and then MySpace to Facebook. Sure, some people held out and bypassed the MySpace all together and leaped straight from Friendster to Facebook. It's sort of like the bar/club scene: a new bar opens, people visit it and say "gee, this place is way cooler than my usual bar" and start going to the new bar exclusively, and then hear about a hipper bar that everyone else is going to and visit that one and say "gee, this even newer place is way more awesome than..." and so on. It's silly, but it's what happens.
Three friends have been like: OH! I'll send you an invite! What's your gmail? And I give it to them and haven't gotten my invite! :/
Google+ just doesn't have anything significantly better that I can think of at the moment that makes it as worthy of switching to. I mean, sure, it has a lot of great things, but Facebook got lucky by being good at the time when MySpace was not being good. Google+ has come along as a competitor rather than a successor. Do I want a competitor? No, not really. In the world of social networking, I don't want a competitor because it splits people into different sites. Having a monopoly of a social networking industry is something that worked for me when it comes to Facebook, not because I'm a Facebook fanboy but because I want all my friends to be in the same place to avoid me having to log into multiple locations to try to keep up with different people. For me, it's an inconvenience. The internet should be far more convenient.
Hopefully Yahoo! will at least tap into it and I can continue to look at my Yahoo! Mail page for updates from both sites, much like I can look at it for both Twitter and Facebook updates now. I'll just add Google+ to that, I guess. It's not ideal and still lacks convenience, but I suppose it will allow me to at least keep up with everything from a single location.
This kind of reminds me of PS3 vs. Xbox 360 in how it is splitting people up. I mean, I have both consoles so it's not as much of an issue for me, but because there was no real monopoly of the market from either side, I've ended up with half of my friends using one network and half using the other. Competitive, yes. Convenient, hell no. This means I can't play with all my friends on a single console. Definitely inconvenient. =/
Reply With Quote
)
