David Kirkpatrick's book (or at least the chapter I read for this week) was eye-opening. A detailed account of the rise of social networks, culminating in a controversial dispute as to who really created what we today know as Facebook, Kirkpatrick focused more on providing the details and letting the reader decide who in the end was the true King of Social Networks.
My personal opinion is that Zuckerberg deserves the credit for Facebook because as Kirkpatrick states: "Every social networking site on the planet by this time was influenced by Friendster". Based on the history of social networks, every new version was simply an improvement of the previous version, and used consumer insights to address unmet needs. In the case of Facebook, houseSYSTEM was too complicated - consumers wanted simple. Harvard Connection (or ConnectU) was a hybrid of what would become Facebook and My Space - consumers already had My Space, and they were looking JUST for Facebook. Zuckerberg met this need, at the right time (when digital cameras and fast connections were available) and the right place (among elite college students who sought an online platform for their "facebook"). Product development and the fundamentals of marketing at its best - so why should he be punished for this? If I'm being completely honest, I think a little bit of luck had some play in how the situation developed. Yet, that's also part of the deal: Zuckerberg got a little lucky, his classmates didn't. Or one might argue they did get lucky based on what appears to be a sizable chunk of change that they received from the settlement.
So, what do you think? Is Zuckerberg Facebook's true creator or did he just take advantage of his classmates? In the battle of crowning the Social Media King - who reigns?
I agree Zuckerberg is the true creator of Facebook. He incorporated ideas from other social networks and put all of the ideas together to create what everyone wanted.
ReplyDeleteI think that Zuckerberg did create something new with Facebook, but the extend to which he built on the ideas of his friends may have indeed crossed the intellectual property line. If nothing else, he should have at least been more transparent with his classmates/coworkers that he was building his own social networking site at the same time he was writing code for theirs.
ReplyDeleteGreat insights. I agree with everyone. Zuckerberg should have been more transparent when he was creating Facebook, especially since he tells us we should be okay with sharing all of our online activity. Even if he had completely ripped off someone else's idea, the work and evolution of Facebook since its inception is a large part of what we now think of as a social network, so I think he deserves the lion's share of credit.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with both points of view. I think Zuckerberg should've been more transparent, but I also think he did create something with a lot of value. The truth is, no one is really going to know how it all came to fruition, and there's nothing that anyone can do to change it. I think it's important to look at Zuckerberg's success since the beginning of Facebook. He has managed, with no experience, to lead a very successful company. Regardless of the origination of the idea, he should be congratulated on his foresight for the website and for its development. It is possible that under someone else's lead facebook could've gone the way of Friendster and other non-existent social networking sites.
ReplyDeleteGood point Amanda, and it seems general consensus is that despite him being the lead, the fact that he wasn't 100% honest takes a bit away from his "crowning glory". Interesting! I still do think that he had the vision (like Amanda said) to make it stick, and know what would work in the end and what wouldn't, which is what made it stand apart from all the other social networks. It'll be interesting to see how long Facebook stays on top, since many people are getting annoyed at how EVERYONE is on FB now.
ReplyDelete