This really does look like a bad comparison.
Maybe you could adjust for total internet users then and now but I doubt that would make a difference.
Edit: (dubious) source:
https://startupbros.com/myspace-the-rise-fall-and-rise-again...
It's just interesting that not a single research was done on this topic that I know about. :)
It would be easy to replace, if that group of friends/colleagues decided to use something else for collaboration. We don't need to replace all 100 services they offer. We need only a couple.
I suspect that's how Facebook is going to end. We're not all going to stop going to "facebook.com" overnight. Someone will steal away chat (Twitter?), someone will steal away photos (Flickr?), someone will steal away events, and so on, until it's been picked clean.
[0] http://theunbrokenwindow.com/Development/MADDISON%20The%20Wo... (page 97)
Or the number of users that any startup founder will die for...
It is impressive what Facebook managed to build, but, although the number is staggering, the relative amount of people that switched from horses to cars or to electricity for illumination from candles and burning oil is even bigger... People do not voluntarily stop using something, but the force of innovation is huge. Very few Fortune 500 companies even existed 100 years ago, and the pace of disruption is accelerating...
Who would have thought Apple would be the most valuable company when the iPhone came out. Nokia was the king back then. Kids nowadays don’t even know what Nokia is.
Just joking, Totally agree with you...
Staggering.
Facebooks demise doesn't require the coordinated action of two billion people. Network effects work the other way as well: when people do leave, they make the experience a little worse for all their contacts, lowering the bar for them to leave as well.
Sure, the number of users probably extends the long tail of the demise, indeed I expect Facebook to hang around as at least a low-engagement contact book/messenger platform for a long time. Their demise will look more like Yahoo than MySpace, but the MySpace story does tell us that network effects aren't magical spells that can never be broken, and network effects are Facebooks most important moat.
Seems a lot of the online world is on Facebook now, but technology does make it very easy to switch platforms at a moment's notice when the new thing comes out. As you've stated, it's MUCH harder to change a core part of one's identity.
* Roman Catholics (1.2 billion)
* People living in China (1.4 billion)
* Total speakers of English, the most widely-spoken language in the world (1.4 billion)
* Muslims (1.8 billion)
* Viewers of the 2014 FIFA World Cup final (1 billion)
* iPhones ever manufactured (1.2 billion; also, the top two most-used apps are Facebook and Facebook Messenger)
* Windows users (1.4 billion)
* Inhabitants of the European Union (508 million)
* Cats (600 million)
* Firearms (875 million)
* Africans (1 billion)
Now, obviously whether or not you use Facebook isn't as important to your identity or as hard to change as your religion or where you live, but it's also not something that's just going to suddenly disappear without some sort of replacement, or else if it does, it will be the first time in human history that two billion people all decided at once to give up on something.