Tuesday
13Nov2007
Friendster Lost Lead Because of a Failure to Scale
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 at 3:21AM
Hey, this scaling stuff might just be important. Jim Scheinman, former Bebo and Friendster exec, puts the blame squarely on Friendster's inability to scale as why they lost the social networking race:
VB: Can you tell me a bit about what you learned in your time at Friendster?
JS: For me, it basically came down to failed execution on the technology side — we had millions of Friendster members begging us to get the site working faster so they could log in and spend hours social networking with their friends. I remember coming in to the office for months reading thousands of customer service emails telling us that if we didn’t get our site working better soon, they’d be ‘forced to join’ a new social networking site that had just launched called MySpace…the rest is history. To be fair to Friendster’s technology team at the time, they were on the forefront of many new scaling and database issues that web sites simply hadn’t had to deal with prior to Friendster. As is often the case, the early pioneer made critical mistakes that enabled later entrants to the market, MySpace, Facebook & Bebo to learn and excel. As a postscript to the story, it’s interesting to note that Kent Lindstrom (CEO of Friendster) and the rest of the team have done an outstanding job righting that ship.
Hopefully with all the quality information out now on the intertubes visionaries can concentrate on making good stuff instead of always fighting the plumbing. When you think about, is there any industry or group that gives so much value away for free as the software community? I don't think so. We are an amazingly giving group and the world has benefited greatly from that impulse. A thought for Thanksgiving.
VB: Can you tell me a bit about what you learned in your time at Friendster?
JS: For me, it basically came down to failed execution on the technology side — we had millions of Friendster members begging us to get the site working faster so they could log in and spend hours social networking with their friends. I remember coming in to the office for months reading thousands of customer service emails telling us that if we didn’t get our site working better soon, they’d be ‘forced to join’ a new social networking site that had just launched called MySpace…the rest is history. To be fair to Friendster’s technology team at the time, they were on the forefront of many new scaling and database issues that web sites simply hadn’t had to deal with prior to Friendster. As is often the case, the early pioneer made critical mistakes that enabled later entrants to the market, MySpace, Facebook & Bebo to learn and excel. As a postscript to the story, it’s interesting to note that Kent Lindstrom (CEO of Friendster) and the rest of the team have done an outstanding job righting that ship.
Hopefully with all the quality information out now on the intertubes visionaries can concentrate on making good stuff instead of always fighting the plumbing. When you think about, is there any industry or group that gives so much value away for free as the software community? I don't think so. We are an amazingly giving group and the world has benefited greatly from that impulse. A thought for Thanksgiving.
Reader Comments (4)
I disagree with how Jim characterizes that time period. As part of the technology team that faced those scaling issues, I'll certainly agree that a lot of lessons were learned, too many to mention here.
But as to how Friendster squandered its traffic...I will say that in my opinion, a large burden needs to rest squarely on the shoulders of the product management teams. There was a clear failure to realize some simple truths:
- MySpace was going to win in traffic, for the plain fact that viewers did not have to be members, unlike Friendster.
- Once your social network was built on Friendster, there was little left to do, and there was a lot of floundering around guessing as to what could be added to the site to keep users engaged. An integrated IM platform was worked on in-house for months until finally scrapped as a lost cause. Then a couple months later, restarted the project as an outsourced/managed application. Features that were intended on harnessing the reputation/suggestions that were built-in to the social graph were only talked about, never materialized. (i.e., like Yelp!)
- The continued insistence by PM that calculating the 3 or 4 degrees of friends total had to be part of the main feature list. A huge amount of time, effort, and hardware was spent on keeping these supposedly important numbers updated real-time.
While it was a great place to learn scaling lessons (traffic rose from ~25M PVs per day to over ~105M when I was there, from Feb 2004 to Jan 2005) by no means was Friendster's downfall related only to technological failures.
Why John, are you saying an executive may be wrongly shifting blame away from the executive team? I find that hard to believe :-)
Having a couple sources of data, it sounds like Friendster had trouble balancing the demands of existing users with the need to add features so they could attract new ones. John's correct that this is a classic product management issue.
It's hard to believe they couldn't keep their members happy even when they were giving them all the answers to fix their problems. That's what's wrong with companies now, they don't aim to please their customers and end up losing them to their competitors who give members what they want.