No, it's not a better addition (for me, at least) because like I said, no one I know is on Twitter.
If I was Kim Kardashian then I would totally agree with you.
Kim Kardashian or not, you get the same useless status updates on Facebook as well. Since Twitter is really just quick status updates.
The social network industry is pretty new so who knows how it'll evolve. But for both of the market leaders that have failed, the reasons are pretty obvious
Facebook doesn't have these issues. On top of that, it looks like it's paying attention to what their competitors are doing and making sure they offer the same thing. When Foursquare's geolocation got popular, Facebook ripped it off with Facebook Places. The timeline concept and cover picture are ripped off directly from Path. When Google+ came out and advertised itself as having better privacy controls, Facebook tweaked its own privacy controls, made groups easier to use, ripped off Circles, etc. Instagram has a social network based entirely off pictures, Facebook realizes in 2012 pictures are a primary function of social networks so they buy it and integrate it.
Pinterest is probably the next big competitor so I'm guessing FB will probably rip off and integrate how people are linked through activities. If they're smart, FB will integrate blogging somewhere down the line, seeing how microblogs and traditional blogs like Xanga also function as social networks.
Facebook looks like they're trying to become the behemoth of social networks, adding every feature its competitors innovate. Most of its competitors are essentially barebones social networks distinguished by 1 or 2 original ideas. So Facebook rips off those ideas and removes the threat. Since nobody is suing anybody for ripping off features in this industry, their strategy seems to be working.
The social networking industry isn't really new, it's been around since MySpace and Friendster times (unless you count that as recent), it was just recently labelled as social media/network, which didn't happen before.
Facebook definitely will last longer than MySpace and Friendster for the reasons you stated.
However, user engagement has already started decreasing. North America and UK which were the primary markets are dropping big time, and Brazil, India and Indonesia are were majority of growth is coming from. So from the looks of the business cycle, Facebook has already passed peak in North America and UK, while it has just started growing in the non-developed countries.
At the end of the day, how many people in Brazil, India and Indonesia who have Facebook can afford the things they see in Facebook ads? What purchasing power do they have?
Because Facebook is a company, they need to generate revenue, which is through ads for them. How long will it be until advertisers like GM realize that paying Facebook millions for Facebook ads are useless when they can just open free company group or fan pages, and attract people's attentions there?
How many people actually click on the ads? Also, how many of the 900M users are doubles, triples etc. due to cheating on games like Farmville?
The whole IPO fiasco also showed us that Facebook and it's underwriters hid a lot of negative information from the general public, such as decreasing revenue. They've yet to monetize from mobile. While Facebook has more users, it's engagement in North America and UK are decline big time, and it's advertisers are clearly not giving Facebook as much money as they previously did.
You're right, Facebook is trying to be the only place people go to connect with everyone, and that is a stupid move imo. When someone tries to do too many things, they become really crappy at it. Maybe a niche like LinkedIn and Twitter will last longer because of that.
Just how many more people want a more "open and connected" world, when your private information is being sold in the market already?
I've noticed a significant drop of usage from my 500+ "friends", and i'm sure i'm not the only one.
