A friend had asked the other day what I thought would be next for sites like Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
Social networks are hardly new or novel on the internet’s infrastructure. In fact, the application is one of the first created on the platform dating over a decade ago if not earlier. The internet, as a platform is two parts — software (websites, apps, search engines, browsers, social networks, etc.) and infrastructure. While obviously successful, the advent of MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc. had far more to do with user adoption of the internet infrastructure and where users were at on the platform, and good timing, than necessarily there being any sort of innovation or invention. Though there were plenty of evolutions to the base concept, such as being able to easily share photos, etc., which is great.
In context of the internet infrastructure’s functionality, the social network is essentially the platform’s communications component than information distribution. Though, because information distribution is also a functionality on the platform, it is possible for any company to take a position here even if it not its organic place. Twitter is a great example of this, though for likely the largest bunch of Twitter users, the communications functionality is still the draw. People, talking to people.
Legacy communications infrastructure mainly include the landline voice communications (or ‘PSTN’) and the cellular voice and text communications platforms, though radio platform does enable communications functionality. The internet platform by design fosters all of the above, in addition to its own legacy platform functionality such as email, instant message, and in many ways, the social network.
In context, the internet’s communications capabilities also include video communications, which is less like YouTube and more like Skype in terms of use and purpose.
The understanding of the communications aspect of the internet infrastructure hasn’t yet evolved within the mass market and particularly the media, including and in large part the software side of the platform (websites, apps, social networks, etc.) industries and the companies in it. This is understandable as the software side is essentially from the legacy market of the software business — i.e., things that are bought on a shelf or online such as PhotoShop, Microsoft Office, etc.
Just because it’s on the internet infrastructure as a website or app doesn’t make it any less of the software business. The ability for one industry to recognize another industry business it has no previous position or experience in is difficult for any.
The focus has instead been nearly entirely on the internet platform’s other functionality, information distribution and subsequently, corresponding information business. This is also understandable as this aspect of the platform’s functionality is easier for the infrastructure to do. It’s natural that the external, or user-facing, side would correspond in terms of functionality and use given this.
But it doesn’t change that the internet infrastructure is what it is, which is a hybrid, multi-functional platform that enables these elements, and the position of the social network with it. No matter what a company may do to take full advantage of this unique aspect of the internet platform it will always fall into, at its core, one of the infrastructure’s features. In the case of the social network on the internet, that is communications functionality. Like any other company on the platform, one can take advantage of the other platform functionality from there.
The issue with the internet as it relates to social networks like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. is that the internet as an infrastructure is still moving — it has not arrived at its intended destination in terms of use and position yet. The infrastructure is capable of doing so, but the application (use) has not evolved to enable and drive it, largely due to lack of creation of the software (websites, apps, etc.) and devices as many in these industries do not recognize the internet in this context. Though this is slowly changing.
Given that the internet itself is still moving, the question about the future of the social network isn’t what the users will do (this is actually fairly easy to see) but whether or not social network companies will be capable of adapting to the evolution of the infrastructure itself, which is still in motion, sure to come and sure to drastically change everything about the internet platform and the way people use it.
The biggest threat next to this is the arrival of new tools that better fit the future that is ahead, which can happen nearly at any time as well. Regardless whether or not any company, new or old, survives or not is ultimately in whether or not it can see the future ahead, and more importantly, know what to do with it. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next.
