Every new feature Facebook introduced has already been done by someone else. When it started, it was a simple clean website, and that ease of use attracted the initial users. Then Facebook was opened for apps, and there was a flood of zombie/vampire apps, and widgets to customize your page with. Like most geeks, I got sick of those years earlier, having visited enough PHPnuke-based portals and linkspam-based games.<p>But for many people Facebook was an introduction to the things you could do online. It was a structured, gradual, hand-holding introduction, which is what I think made it work.
Pretty simple: This article has nothing to do with what happened, only conjecture with hindsight. How many phone calls, or little decisions guided facebook through its early months? Many. Trying to pin down a reason why one site won out over another is just crazy. Things are not 3 variable functions, they are much more complex.
Like this write-up by Wesabi's cofounder as to why they lost to mint much beter:
<a href="http://blog.precipice.org/why-wesabe-lost-to-mint" rel="nofollow">http://blog.precipice.org/why-wesabe-lost-to-mint</a>
I'd like to see a comparison of the competing interfaces. It's not about the functionality -- as Facebook has shown by attaining the large majority of its users after the Notes functionality was included, the ability to blog doesn't keep users away. If you present yourself as a blogging site, however, and no one wants to blog, then you're in for it.<p>I think it'd be interesting to see if there really was something better about the Facebook interface or if this whole thing should be blamed on network effects. People used Facebook when it was new for the same reason they use it now: the people they know also use it.
Facebook didn't win because of better features. They went for the most valuable and influential users first. I think their initial user base, exclusivity and gradual expansion were their greatest assets.