Mr. Zuckerberg Facebook's success is dependent on user base; not fancy apps, logos, features, etc. Sure they are nice possbily even fun, but don't get carried away and become the AIM of AOL. You created a great recipe, that works. If you mess it up, which is what I believe Google + and others are hoping for you will become a Myspace story. I never thought facebook would fail because of the global reach, and idea that frankly my friend Joe Schmo is no different on ANY other social network, thus i stay on facebook because i interact with your large user base. The idea that when I, her, or you post anything we get initial reaction from others; and unfortunately thats why most people live life to appease people, or get gratification from others. However your user base will leave if you continue to add the unncessary hidden door in the gameroom. The status updates are neat, we're humans we like interaction; photo updates, friend additions, comments, basic human nature interaction tid bits. It works, what doesn't work is trying to enhance the basic features or make believe you have something more than just a place to interact with other egos. In studying business plans, and businesses the #1 fall from businesses is not listening to the customer, and not providing what the customer wants. Conrad Hilton was brilliant, possibly too brilliant; but he knew what people wanted, and he didnt bombard them with things they did not. Collective innovation that is desired is different than innovation from self; You may be brilliant yourself, but don't let that be your downfall.
THUS...
I finally see a chance for facebook to fail, and to fail both suddenly & miserably. I wouldn't stand close enough to glimpse at a facebook IPO next year. Even with a great product as it stands, their main leverage point is the equivalent of AOL's now ancient AIM; user base. In the 90's AOL was the first to pioneer this idea of communicating or modern appropriate "texting" to friends via the computer and they were brilliant with this idea, at least early on. However they aren't even the B team in terms of relevance in the internet world today. Nobody cares about the history of "important internet companies" or their glory days; besides maybe just those unique historians. Today we think of Google, Apple, and Facebook as the gold of the internet monetary system and companies who tied innovation with users in a, and please note this; functional manner. Apple works because people download a song, and it's simple; if Apple started asking for bells & whistles when you downloaded a song; it would fail as well. AOL is the step-child in a grown-ups world; in fact step-child may be giving AOL too much credit. AOL missed big time on change/adaptation on a recipe that they created; connecting people through the internet. They lost for a different reason, missing the connection. You will lose for messing with the formula; changing a good thing to the point of annoying your users.
Now, facebook faces a similar problem. By making AIM's recipe edible; turning a 99 cent soft taco or AIM communicator from Taco Bell into a gourmet Mexican dinner at a fancy 5 star and not just a locally desired one, but a global one. Users were okay with change to a point & this includes myself, mainly because facebook could rely on their brand and control from having the most users of any social network and so they continued to bombard us with changes, some we liked and some we still don't. New flash to Mark Zuckerberg, research Coke's experiment of 1985 and why customers refused to purchase that product. Certainly Facebook is not a tangible product, heck i'm not even sure if it's a product or service at all; other than feeling a void of peer interaction which by human nature is necessary, at least for most; this would exclude of course the hermit, or most impressive the leaders who prefer solitude over followers.
The point is simple, when you have that much of demand, you can slap face style change to us so long as it is subtle and less frequent ; simply because we are willing to stay in your facebook world given the great appeal of the "user-base". Google + can't build that base quickly enough #1 because their interface stinks too many buttons out of place menus etc etc, Myspace is gone for good reason: because of facebook, Xanga is irrelevant.
Thus there is now a void: I would create Ally.com ally.com/firstlast name, and i would take your recipe and mold it to something that doesn't irrate users, maybe sir you are similar to the greats: think Howard Hughes to the point of over perfection. Or maybe you want to challenge a world that thinks they can't live without your product facebook and by that ego think that you can do whatever you like and keep your success, frankly this is a dangerous attitude. I believe timeline was created in fear of Google +, and to offer additional revenue streams to make your IPO next year more attractive; and you thought that innovation was needed for a superior product. Truth is, it wasn't innovation that was needed; because Google + only needed a status update, wall, photo album, and mass marketing to compete: You have a service that is nothing more than a communication channel for networking: The vairable is that you did it first, and have the users; who wouldn't leave until now. By getting ahead of yourself, your creation with timeline is too much and it will fail. Google + was late to the party, thats why social networks can't compete because all they are doing is maybe using a bird or different symbol for a status update, and add or intro a few fancy features; but the point is that the average person only needs (1) social network like facebook, twitter is different; thus by changing your recipe like coke attempted in 1985; you will fail unless you begin to listen to your users.
- Aaron
