Half of Americans think Facebook is a fad

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/15/tech/facebook-passing-fad-survey/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

by davidtyleryork • 14 years ago

60 65 14 years ago

nnnnni• 14 years ago

It is, just like MySpace and Friendster before it... In a few years, the next big thing will take over and the cycle will repeat itself.

dakrisht• 14 years ago

Couldn't agree more. I remember when AOL chat rooms were the end-all. IRC was the place to be. Compuserve, Lycos and Alta Vista were kings in their own right. Netscape was the only browser. Friendster was doing something no one had done before. It's simple technological progression - we seek the latest and the greatest. And that will certainly come with regard to social. Facebook will always be around, just like Yahoo! is - but the "next big thing" is right around the corner. Good luck to those seeking it.

tedunangst• 14 years ago

Funny you mention AV, which Google killed around 2001. And then, after that...? There's always a next big thing, until there isn't. Sometimes the last man standing remains the last man standing, though predicting who it will be is rather tricky.

atarian• 14 years ago

I'm not so sure. I will most likely be wrong, but I really think Facebook has dug in too well to be easily displaced. It's integrated itself into so many different tenets (gaming, marketing for other brands, sharing) that I just can't see it being a fad. There was that uh-oh moment when Google+ was opened, but Facebook countered pretty quickly. As long as they keep doing that I think they'll be fine.

wickedchicken• 14 years ago

> I really think Facebook has dug in too well to be easily displaced.

lol

moylan• 14 years ago

the telegraph service western union turned down a chance to buy the patent for telephones as they thought it was merely a toy. it's still a custom in ireland to send telegrams for weddings, other than that...

facebook is merely a service that will exist till some better service comes along.

disclaimer. never had a facebook account.

josephcooney• 14 years ago

Exactly - people seem to want to hit 'reset' on their peer group/network from time to time. Moving to a different social network seems to support that.

ivan_ah• 14 years ago

There could be hidden interests which benefit from facebook's success. These interests, manifested in the 12M from Accel [ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=484171 ], have probably a lot to do why fb made it and myspace and friendster failed.

It very weird to watch a American society buy stock in the very company that is trying to enslave them.

Drbble• 14 years ago

The fact the MySpace was awful probably had more to do with it.

Gormo3• 14 years ago

Lots of VCs and investors pumped money into AOL and non-monetizable dotcoms, too.

Having lots of capital might have enabled Facebook's short-term success, but you need a lot more than capital to sustain a compelling product and maintain a market over the long term.

dm85• 14 years ago

Facebook already bought the next big thing in social world last month.

moocow01• 14 years ago

Or otherwise said - Half of Americans make predictions based upon pattern matching.

Based upon the history of the internet industry and especially social networks its a lot riskier to say something will be relevant in 5-10 years than not

ahquresh• 14 years ago

You are right, not many would be willing to bet that Facebook will be as relevant in 10 years as it is now but I believe this thought is just part of human nature. We are always anticipating change, something better than what we have now. Nobody is wrong to think that,not that I am saying that is what you were implying with your statement. Along with pattern matching, I think it also has alot to do with what others think. It surprises me on a day to day basis how many people base their opinions of such things on the opinions of others.

lpolovets• 14 years ago

I think 18+ is a poor demographic group for this kind of survey. Here's my unfounded guess about the actual results:

* 18-39 -- few people think it's a fad.

* 39-60 -- many people think it's a fad.

* 61+ -- most people think it's a fad or don't get it.

Lump all the groups together and you get 45% believing FB is a fad.

I know I'm stereotyping horribly, but I can't see a lot of legitimacy in a survey that clumps everyone together into one big group when the subgroups probably have wildly varying opinions.

mike626• 14 years ago

I have always thought that Facebook's success was tied to their targeting of the next generation of consumers, that is college students, who had not yet made a brand or technology commitment.

In this way, they gather together a core group of users who in turn draw marketshare away from others both within and outside of their generational cohort.

In my family, it certainly worked that way with my sister pulling my mother, father, and eventually myself into using Facebook as the primary way to share family information.

beedogs• 14 years ago

The other half think getting in on the IPO is a great idea.

This should be fun to watch.

tokenadult• 14 years ago

Contrary to a couple of the comments already posted, I'm seeing abandonment of Facebook happening most rapidly among the generation that is now of college age (my oldest son's generation) rather than the generation of Baby Boomers (my generation). I was late to start using Facebook, and now use it heavily (it has replaced email lists for interacting with my circle of friends) but I observe that my son and his friends, when they aren't seeing one another in person, are as likely to use other technologies (no, not email) these days as to use Facebook to converse with one another. Facebook has already lost most of its cachet with the group of users who first began using Facebook when Facebook was restricted to persons with university Internet accounts.

As have all people in my generation, I saw the boom and bust of AOL, and it wouldn't surprise me at all for Facebook not merely to become uncool but also actively to lose money. It's been done before. I've been surprised, actually, at how well Facebook has scaled (I never thought its servers would be able to keep up with so many user actions in real time) and I've been pleasantly surprised too at how well I like to interact even with friends I regularly see in person on Facebook. But I could well believe that something shinier or newer could come along and draw away my friendship network as rapidly as it has been drawn away from other online services in the past.

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

My teenage niece and her friends are constantly on Facebook. As well as constantly texting each other (We're talking literally 4-5000 texts a month here).

College is a weird out-of-band gap in most people's social lives, and it's not really any meaningful indication of how they will live post-college.

w1ntermute• 14 years ago

> As well as constantly texting each other (We're talking literally 4-5000 texts a month here).

Using the number of text messages sent/received per month often vastly distorts the picture. When you've got an unlimited texting plan, many of the texts you send are just "yes", "no", "lol", or ":)".

dm85• 14 years ago

A professor of mine once told me that their phone bill boomeranged. When he investigated they were shocked to find that their teenage daughter had sent 3700 text in the month she got iPhone. When he asked her to stop, she started using group messaging tools like FB messenger.

Gormo3• 14 years ago

I think the AOL comparison is very relevant. In the mid-90s, AOL was the first experience of online communication that a huge number of people had, and AOL grew rapidly; but its customer base eventually matured and discovered the broader internet, and AOL declined. There was a period without a hegemonic 'entry-level' online service, and Facebook eventually jumped into that void and dominated it.

But none of these services do anything that wasn't already available via incumbent technologies (which were somewhat inaccessible to non-geeks), e.g. BBSes, Usenet, IRC, IM, web forums, etc., and people have been developing more accessible iterations of these types of technologies (reddit, for example), and people will eventually migrate away from the constrained, privacy-compromising services like Facebook into the wider internet.

People say that the open web is dead, but I think the walled garden approach is never really long-term sustainable.

queensnake• 14 years ago

> I think the walled garden approach is never really long-term sustainable.

You don't think so, because ... ?

bunderbunder2• 14 years ago

People say that the open web is dead, but I think the walled garden approach is never really long-term sustainable.

I'm even more pessimistic than that about it. I think the real lesson of all these predecessors such as AOL is that you can't put a wall around the garden in the first place. You can say you have, but that would be putting your mouth in a place your money shouldn't follow.

People thought nobody would leave the AOL because of network effects - if all your friends are there, and your Internet social life is centered there, then that would create a barrier to exit. What it seems to really create is something more like the effect that happens in real-life social gatherings: For a while people may stay, but only because of social pressure. They're actually ready to leave, they're just waiting for a cue that causes them to be comfortable with leaving. That usually comes in the form of someone else finally deciding to go. That triggers a chain reaction so that all of a sudden, a party that seemed to be still going strong empties out all at once and without much warning.

A lot like the WeLL, AOL, MySpace, etc.

jes5199• 14 years ago

Anecdote: I have a friend who's a college professor - a student told him that Facebook is passe because 1) it's got too many ads 2) everyone's parents are on it.

It's possible that this is just the lifecycle of social networks - they gradually get infiltrated by money and adults, and the young people move on, causing the network to stagnate and die.

I guess it's still possible that there's a niche for a stable, long-term social network for people over 30, but I guess only time will tell.

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

Here's something to consider-

Kids who feel the need to be somewhere cooler will be both there and on Facebook.

Why is that outcome not more likely than Facebook will stagnate and die?

artursapek2• 14 years ago

Speaking as a kid (19 y/o), we like rejecting things that are uncool. Nobody my age uses Google Plus, for example. Facebook's coolness has been steadily declining and I've been seeing people I know ditch it one at a time since I quit about 4 months ago.

Also, I think we don't like dividing our attention/loyalty.

It's seriously fucked up, though. Now that I'm free of the Facebook mental disease, it's disgusting to watch my friends in college mindlessly scrolling through the News Feed and not reacting to anything. Down, back up, back down... Facebook will be easy to replace with something new soon, I think that will be a really opportunistic window in about a year or so.

dm85• 14 years ago

When facebook bought Instagram, this is what one disappointed 12 yo girl thought.

http://twitpic.com/97ub0z

"facebook is stupid and for old people. It will change instagram"

Edit: By the way, most of teens use facebook heavily

iamgilesbowkett2• 14 years ago

"Facebook is passe because 1) it's got too many ads 2) everyone's parents are on it.

It's possible that this is just the lifecycle of social networks - they gradually get infiltrated by money and adults, and the young people move on, causing the network to stagnate and die."

I've considered Facebook a nightclub for a long time, but somebody (I think Mark Susser) said that the difference was timing, and Myspace and Friendster were simply too early. That made me pause to think, and I have to admit there may be something to it.

So my opinion these days is that there's a small chance he'll turn out to be right, and a much stronger chance that these things are nightclubs - "nobody goes there because it's too crowded" is the beginning of the end for them, and it hits all of them sooner or later.

bunderbunder2• 14 years ago

To Susser(?)'s comment: Perhaps, but on the other hand people were saying the same thing about AOL vs. Prodigy and CompuServe.

gaius• 14 years ago

social network for people over 30

Two words: Friends Reunited.

bicknergseng• 14 years ago

If by fad you mean it has made its creators richer than god and is useful enough that almost a billion people have signed up for it.

I imagine half of Americans think far more foolish things.

oblique63• 14 years ago

> If by fad you mean it has made its creators richer than god

are you implying that 'fads' can't be extremely profitable?

maybe the term "fad" gives it a different connotation, but people get rich off of economic bubbles all the time, and I would assume those can be classified as 'fads' as well...

ericmoritz• 14 years ago

Everything is a fad.

dm85• 14 years ago

A friend of mine who is a tutor for middle schoolers once told me that her students would send her assignments via their parents email id. She asked her students why they are not using their own email id since its free. In response students told that they use Facebook messages for communication amongst all the students and email is for old people. I was shocked when I heard this from her. Kids are future and facebook is integral to their life. Much like web based stuff (Amazon, Google etc.) was to my generation (born in 80s).

Edit: Grammar

freehunter2• 14 years ago

Hell, I was born in the late 80s, and email is only useful to me at work. I generally don't check my email unless I need to find a tracking number or someone calls me and says they've emailed me something.

Facebook is one part of it. Texting is another. Phone calls are big with some friends (mostly with family). Email combines massive amounts of information that's not immediately useful (payment verification, tracking numbers, bank statements, etc) with a response that's far from instant. Combine that with the "no one uses it, because no one uses it" effect, and email is one of the most inconsequential technologies in my life.

But Facebook is not, at its core, integral to their/our lives. Instant broadcast information is. Like I say quite often, the iPhone didn't need Apple to make it, Apple just happened to be the one who did. Facebook could be supplanted tomorrow by anything, and the effect would be exactly the same.

ajasmin• 14 years ago

What kind of instant notification are you subscribing to? Instant messaging?

Don't you prefer things piling up in a queue(email) rather than being constantly distracted?

spodek• 14 years ago

People talk about it being addictive and it was, but then after you get back in touch with all the old friends from way back when you realize you can't keep in touch with them all.

Then you learn leaving Facebook is easy and fun -- http://joshuaspodek.com/leaving-facebook-easy-and-fun.

After deactivating my account, the only reason I haven't logged in one last time to message everyone that I left (mainly because I find their privacy policies creepy and getting more so) is that I'm in China for a month, which blocks Facebook.

Don't use the site for a few days and you find you don't miss it. At least that's my experience. Missing the invitations and updates from there didn't leave me alone in a room with nothing to do. I did other things, with people who invited me in person or directly.

onlawschool2• 14 years ago

Interesting...CNN appears to have pulled the content...

onlawschool2• 14 years ago

The plot thickens: Searching CNN for "facebook" returns no results... http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=facebook&sortBy=date

I tried several other keywords without encountering any problems.

farnsworth• 14 years ago

Hm, I guess Ted Turner is buying into the IPO?

fiatpandas• 14 years ago

This method of searching seems to be returning results: http://articles.cnn.com/keyword/facebook

The CNN article was basically this mashable post: http://mashable.com/2012/05/15/facebook-fad/

mbailey• 14 years ago

Just before I clicked on this, I clicked on another HN article that was on Facebook about Zuck was an organ donar (wat?). I couldn't read it because I fully deleted my account about a year ago. I had a flashback, and realized, facebook is the new AOL.

pairing• 14 years ago

I've noticed a huge drop within in my friends' activity on Facebook. I have exactly 100 "friends". The vast majority of which are college acquaintances who graduated in 2010

The bulk of my news feed is the same 4-5 people. I was shocked to find that when I checked in yesterday 6 "friends" had deactivated their account within the last 2 weeks. I have vastly scaled back my own activity to only checking in once a week. I have less than 5 status/stories in the last year. When I look on my friends' walls/timelines, I see the same amount of activity. This same group of friends would generate that amount of activity in a week. With the better privacy controls, most friends including myself don't share tagged photos anymore.

The only thing I still see Facebook being used for in my circle is chat with Google Chat just as popular.

Will Facebook continue to grow for the next few years? Yes, it will grow outside the U.S. Will Facebook continue to grow in the U.S.? No, the "cool" factor is gone. I think it has already peaked. Will Facebook stock go up after IPO? Yep Is it the next AOL? I believe so.

gulbrandr• 14 years ago

We're sorry! This page is not available.

fpp• 14 years ago

The link is not accessible anymore and no cache at Google, but from the screenshot there I see that this is actually based on an article at mashable:

http://mashable.com/2012/05/15/facebook-fad/

Half of Americans think Facebook is a fad

Related Stories