This article upsets me. Not just because it grosssly oversimplifies everything to make a point, nor because of its complete journalistic negligence (what about companies in competitive markets that have dominated their competitors? why isn't FB vs myspace like netflix vs blockbuster? etc etc. And AOL was merged...how does this related to FB? ugh). But for something deeper...
Maybe I just woke up in an angry mood, but this article is written for the sole purpose of being able to say "I told you so" if indeed somewhere down the line Facebook does tank. It is this "contrarian for publicity's sake" attitude that really creeps under my skin and makes me upset at the world.
I wish author would have given more details on why he thinks Facebook is doomed than just pointing to other doomed companies like AOL and MySpace. The only other point he makes is Goldman's investment. (I am sure many of the Goldman investments actually paid off not by betting against them).
When it comes to social networks, I think this space remains a natural monopoly (Just like OS was before internet days). And by creating open graph, facebook is eliminating need of another social network.
While that is a valid correlation, and that history is a good predictor of the future, Facebook still has a lot of fight left in it. Their Graph API is powerful and their business offerings are strong. Yes, some new service might rear its head and challenge FB, but FB has more staying power and real-world integration than MySpace or Friendster had. (AOL had real-world integration, but their fall was a broken business model).
Media companies have a poor track record when it comes to acquiring big internet properties, as the author points out.
Goldman Sachs is a whole different story. Look up their investment profit track record and it tells a very successful story.
So what I'm really saying is comparing Goldman to Newscorp or Time Warner is a very bad analogy.
This may still be the beginning of the end for Facebook, and I wouldn't be surprised if Goldman rips Facebook to shreds to extract maximum profit, but the authors analogy doesn't hold water.
Sensationalist article which probably allows the author to say "I told you so". Rushkoff is probably right .. in a decade or so if the leadership at Facebook becomes incompetent. By then, the rich clients of Goldman Sachs and all the private investors are all laughing to the bank to the sound of ringing cashiers.
This article upsets me. Not just because it grosssly oversimplifies everything to make a point, nor because of its complete journalistic negligence (what about companies in competitive markets that have dominated their competitors? why isn't FB vs myspace like netflix vs blockbuster? etc etc. And AOL was merged...how does this related to FB? ugh). But for something deeper...
Maybe I just woke up in an angry mood, but this article is written for the sole purpose of being able to say "I told you so" if indeed somewhere down the line Facebook does tank. It is this "contrarian for publicity's sake" attitude that really creeps under my skin and makes me upset at the world.