Welcome back!
According to an article on PC Pro, media giant Rupert Murdoch was provoked into an "angry outburst" over the fact that somehow, Facebook has managed to overtake MySpace.
Thing is, I've got accounts on both sites and I have to say that without doubt, Facebook is the slower, more aggravating site to use. And I'm just talking about using the site to do something simple like MySpace blog posts or Facebook Wall posts. I find that for much of anything more than that, it's necessary to shut down most of my programs in order to have enough memory for the resource hungry flash apps on Facebook. If I were a futures broker, I wouldn't be betting much on Facebook in the long run unless they do a major re-design and efficiency improvement.
Just offhand, I'd say that Murdoch shouldn't be fuming about Facebook overtaking MySpace, he should be completely puzzled. In my experience, MySpace is worlds faster than Facebook.
Technorati Tags: flash applications, myspace, facebook, rupert murdoch, slow website, pc pro
People connect to networks, in which their friends are, so it’s probably marketing that wins over ease of use.
if ease of use were the standard I think it’s possible that both networks would crash and burn.
Anyway, that’s why it’s popular. It was exclusive to people who needed a tool just for them, then it was opened to everybody’s mom who wants to post a picture of a cat, link it to some $1.00 other picture that they buy from Facebook, and send it to someone they haven’t seen for the past 35 years and don’t know anymore.
The story kinda reminds me of what happened to Usenet when first AOL and later Google began offering Usenet newsgroups to their subscribers.
AOL did it the first time in 1993 and then in the late 90’s it happened again when Google bought Deja News and created “Google Groups”.
Both offered Usenet groups as if they were there own creation without bothering to even pretend to educate them about the right way to behave and so Usenet has been in an eternal September ever since.
Facebook allows me a huge amount of privacy. If I don’t join a network then only people I approve can see my information whereas on myspace it is not so easy.
the ability to easily create groups, networks and events is ahead of what myspace managed.
But what i found most telling was an article a few months back in the Times (UK version). the reason, they say, for facbooks most likely dominance is their open api. they open their source code to developers to create applications and software for the site.
Now as it happens most of these things I ignore completely, in fact their sheer number annoys me. But I still do get use out of one or two of them and theres the point. these applications add functionality and fun whereas close sourced sites like myspace to not create such a plethora of options to tailor a site to an individuals needs (though I believe myspace were thinking of opening their own code).
Social networking is about a number of things but functionality is definately a consideration.
Facebook seems to be becoming more like that so I don’t know how much I would bet on it for the future (like you mentioned) but for now I’ll stick with the simple looking facebook interface…
and slow? I feel they are about equal…but what do I know.
Funny Forwardss last blog post..NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION