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: myspace, facebook, rupert murdoch, flash applications, pc pro, slow website
If you like A Peculiar Blog, Consider subscribing to my RSS feed
I agree with you completely. Facebook is super slow, I have no idea how it could have overtaken MySpace.
Facebook is slow alright, but perhaps the answer is below in the next comment
Well I think in the social networking market it isn’t the best product that wins.
People connect to networks, in which their friends are, so it’s probably marketing that wins over ease of use.
That’s the one explanation that makes sense. I wouldn’t even call it “marketing” as such, just that as you said, people tend to join the networks that their friends, family & co-workers are already in.
if ease of use were the standard I think it’s possible that both networks would crash and burn.