We take a too-narrow definition of social networking. If we want to find the next big thing in the Internet, we need to take a step up the stack of abstraction and think more broadly about connections.
Human beings are wired to connect. It's fundamental human nature, and the subject of the still-new social neuroscience field. [1]
Evidence of this is pervasive throughout our culture. Relationships, marriage, cities, tribes, fan clubs, Hacker News itself - _connecting_ in a meaningful way with other people is what we do.
The Internet's success is it's ability to facilitate connections, making them easier, more personal and more meaningful: email, IRC, instant messaging, gopher, the web, facebook, twitter - it's not just facebook and twitter that are "social networking," every successful Internet communications technology has improved the state-of-the-art in allowing us to connect with each other.
So don't consider "what's next for social networking" -- or "the social networking wave is about to crest." The label restricts your mind. Ignore labels, think big. Consider human nature, relationships and how you can connect us to each other in a more meaningful way. Perhaps you'll find the essence of what the pundits will call 'web 3.0.'
1 - http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2006/10/22/how-to-read...
I agree that the internet can better facilitate connections but in what regard do you feel that the internet has made interpersonal relationships more personal and meaningful? In my opinion it has done dramatically the opposite. In fact Id argue that the internet doesn't have a role in having a personal and meaningful relationship with someone.
I don't disagree with your assertion the internet has diminished the quality of our relationships. I'm a luddite in many ways, but that mindset is part of what has led my thinking down this path.
(1) Human beings are meant to connect, (2) the internet is a tool to facilitate connections, (3) each generation of connection technologies has improved upon the previous, (4) social networking is just the natural evolution of Internet communication technologies, (5) there is still significant room for improvement.
As someone who might be considered "visionary" in that I bought many domain names way back in the non-obvious mid 90's I don't even agree with what this statement says.
You think something is going to happen and you take a gamble that you are right and try to limit your downside risk. If you knew you were going to be right you would gamble even more. But rest assured that for that gamble to work out many things would have to happen and the payoff is certainly not quick and certain. Most importantly if enough people take enough chances in different areas statistically some are going to be correct in their assumptions because of things beyond their control and many will fail for the same reason.
And statements like this stating that you should stay away from the froth and "Generally, [you] are better off finding the next gathering wave and a blue ocean of opportunity" are worthless. Essentially find something new to gamble on and you might be the one that guesses correctly about the new new thing. If it were only that easy. It's not.
But the variables that go into a) when you came up with your idea and b) how convinced you are that the idea is worth pursuing are Not Independent of the wave functions discussed in the article!
Part of the reason you're convinced that your social networking idea is sound is that there are concrete examples of successful businesses operating in the space.
At the end of the day, you either believe in your idea's potential to create value for investors in virtue of creating new/increased value for users, or you don't.
If you do, go for it and live with the wave phase you're dealt.
If you don't, waiting around hoping to pitch it in Next Thing terms probably isn't going to help you.
Let's remember that "social networking" is a very, very big thing. In essence it is the foundation of most major communication networks, including the old phone network and the modern internet. It is more than just the little windows into socialization and networking that twitter, facebook, linkedin, etc. represent.
People trying to make the "next facebook" or twitter or what-have-you are going to have problems due to the saturation of very capable competition. But that doesn't mean we've plumbed the depths of facilitating social interactions through software, there's still plenty of room for innovation and disruption.
You're probably going to have a really hard time building a better telephone book, but the telephone book didn't stop email or any later forms of communication from coming to be.
I would hazard a guess that in 2012-2014. Facebook would have taught the mass market of the concept of social network and grease up adoption of more specialized ones thereby widening the addressable userbase for players that have a great product.
We can see this happening with Instagram, Pinterest, Etsy, Reddit which are all social networks with 1 or few social objects at the center.
For example, Facebook has 800M and Instagram has 15M. thats 1.8%. I would guess that as Facebook gets more and more bloated - that ratio (1.8%) will get bigger as more & more users will need a more insular group and specialized features. In turn, niche social networks will have a higher ceiling of XX% of 800M/1B total social-network-exposed people (courtesy of Facebook - the social network gateway drug so to speak)
