Facebook's recent evolution mirrors the evolution of lots of other software, including websites: here's what happens
- someone gets a great idea that makes something easier and/or generic, which was otherwise difficult and/or specific
- it becomes a success because it does exactly what it says on the tin and the users build a consistent mental model of how it works. the people who developed the idea do a good job because they're the ones who use it, so they know what works
- the marketeers see an opportunity: but because they have a mindset that sees money and markets, they add features and increase complexity to the point where the mental model is becomes inconsistent and opaque to the end user, mainly because it's not the end user's needs that are being met, but the needs of ambitious people in the business
- people start complaining and looking for alternatives
- then someone gets a great idea that does just what it says on the tin and provides a consistent, non-annoying experience. the first company then collapses
they're also going against one of the most basic rules of the web: it's a road, not a train on rails. the user is in the driving seat and they can choose to follow any path they like. Facebook is in some ways attempting to put the user on rails, with more limited and pre-defined options, rather than simply a set of signposts they can follow if they wish. that's a big failure and many, many other sites have suffered, because the basic rule of the web is one of active user choice. i reckon that in a boxing match, Marshall McLuhan would trounce Zuckerberg every time :)
i don't care whether facebook survives or not: but it does surprise me that they haven't learned from the mistakes people have made in the past. however, i can tell from Google's evolution that they have learned this lesson: that's exactly how they took a massive market share from Altavista in the late 90s.
btw: does anyone remember Altavista? it was once the search engine everyone used :)
No comments:
Post a Comment