> Doesn't Zuck have enough of the Internet?

Well he needs something else as facebook as we know it will be dead in 10-15 years

Instagram (photos). Whatsapp (messages). Facebook (social networks). Internet.org (everything).

He seems to be a good job of trying to control EVERYTHING.

Don't forget Oculus.

Over hyped.

> Well he needs something else as facebook as we know it will be dead in 10-15 years

You can't blurt out a statement like that without giving any explanation.

I'm not that poster or providing any links to substantiate my claims, but I think the writing is already on the wall and Facebook is seeing it. That's why they were investing so much in Instagram, and now also Messenger, even as a web service -- www.messenger.com. The latest is that they're thinking of introducing games on Messenger, slowly making it a platform on its own.

I _think_ that what Facebook is seeing is that social networks as a huge monolith is dying, that youth is abandoning it first in favor of specialized, niche networks. It's common psychology, really. Youth never enjoyed hanging around with their parents. If parents use Facebook to talk, they'd rather pick something else, like Kik.

Google is seeing it with Google+, which turned into a social network for photographers and geeks, so nowadays they mostly just pump out new photography oriented features.

I think they're careful to say it though since it might indicate a weakness in their strategy, a problem for advertisers:

> “I feel photos are the lifeblood of our service,” said Google+ lead Bradley Horowitz during the conference in 2012. “They are the way we can most immediately and viscerally connect as human beings.”

They're careful to say "photos" are the lifeblood, not "photographers".

Anyway, I think that within as little as five years ahead, we'll still see Facebook a very big company, but many smaller services. If that strategy is successful, I think we'll keep seeing Facebook as a big company for the foreseeable future. I don't think they'll be dead in 10 years, definitely not. But I do think people will barely know they're hanging around on Facebook and they'll have apps for all common demographies.

This is a widely repeated anecdotal statement - the lifecycle for all online social destinations has typically been 8 - 10 years.

The only somewhat useful exception is Yahoo! and they have reinvented themselves many times.

Yes, anecdotal, but not blurted out.

(Examples that are dead or in severe decline: Tripod, Geocities, Blogger, Orkut, Myspace, etc.)

  "Oh, our eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Net,
  We are ramping up our market share, objectives will be met.
  Soon our browser will be everywhere, you ain't seen nothin' yet,
  We embrace and we extend!"
  
  Battle Hymn of the Reorg
  Anonymous Microsoft employee
  MicroNews, the in-house newsletter

http://www.businessweek.com/1996/29/b34841.htm

Or the AOL strategy. Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will.

I can imagine Facebook would have thrived on AOL or MSN (or teletext). Zuck wouldn't have been able to start it from his college room though.

> Both failed, but that doesn't mean this will.

In the end, yes, they did fail. But untill that day, they managed to stiffle progress and do great harm to otherwise good and valuable initiatives and technologies.

So, even if internet.org will fail at some point in future, it has a great potential for harm untill that day.

> Both failed

Eventually yes. But Microsoft was top dog for years and kept the internet back.

Hah, us rich people in "First World" countries are just a drop in the ocean - imagine owning the eyes of all the BRIC countries :D