Online dating sites introduced strangers, while email and existing online communities already supported communication. A visible chain of acquaintances offered another way to discover people, based on the premise that a shared connection could make an introduction more useful. The attraction depended on who participated and how people used the profiles, not just on the total number of registered accounts. FR5
Friendster
Friendster’s early social graph lost value when reliability and product rules drove users away
Arena: Market Conditions Before Friendster
What shaped the outcome
Step 1 of 4 · 2003–04
Existing relationships gave people a reason to join
Friendster used visible friend connections to help people discover friends of friends. The scholarly history describes early growth inside overlapping communities before broad press attention. Members themselves supplied the profiles and connections other people came to inspect. FR2 FR5
A relevant social group could make the service more useful to its next member. That is a local network benefit: ten people a user knows may matter more than a large unrelated audience. It explains a source of early adoption while also defining the vulnerability. If the useful group leaves or stops participating, the registered-user total preserves little of that value.
Rivals Compare a network containing relevant acquaintances with stranger matching or a competing site used by the same group.
Step 2 of 4 · 2003–07
Growth reduced the usefulness of the network it created
Both Abrams and the scholarly history describe performance problems during rapid growth. Abrams later criticized attention to partnerships while the core service remained slow and unreliable. The researchers describe frustration among people who had begun using Friendster in place of email. FR1 FR2 FR5
Reliability had a social consequence. A profile network is valuable when people can reach and interact with the people they want. Repeated friction can reduce both an individual’s use and the reasons friends have to return. This connects the engineering problem to the customer job without assuming that technical repair alone would have settled every other conflict.
Rivals A functioning alternative used by the same friends can become preferable even if it starts with a smaller total network.
Step 3 of 4 · 2003–07
The company restricted uses that a rival welcomed
Members stretched the four-degree browsing rule by adding connections and creating fictional or institutional profiles. Friendster removed such profiles. Boyd and Ellison describe a loss of trust among some early users and contrast this with MySpace’s welcome for bands and greater freedom to personalize pages. FR5
This is a product-policy comparison, not a generic complaint about management. The company’s model of a legitimate profile excluded activities that helped some people discover others, express affiliation or have fun. MySpace could recruit those groups by permitting the activity. A larger network did not compensate every user for being told that their preferred use was invalid.
Rivals Compare how Friendster and MySpace treated the same bands and creative profile practices during the migration period.
Step 4 of 4 · 2005–10
US decline and an Asian business followed different paths
The same scholarly account that describes US departures records growth in several Southeast Asian countries. Abrams emphasized continued Asian usage in his Stanford talk. A later MOL filing places the completed acquisition in January 2010, after the 2009 announcement. FR2 FR5 FR8
The regional difference is a useful check on a universal-collapse story. Networks formed in different groups and places could retain value after US early adopters moved. The acquisition is evidence of a surviving business at this endpoint, although it does not establish strong returns or global leadership. Later studies of Friendster’s decline address a subsequent period and cannot by themselves explain the earlier US loss. FR7
Rivals Compare the social groups and local alternatives within a region before treating worldwide registrations as one competitive market.
Key dates
- 2003Friends of friends define the offer
- 2003-05Press broadens the audience
- 2004Reliability becomes a constraint
- 2004Profile rules create conflict
- 2007Regional paths diverge
- 2009MOL enters a commercial relationship
- 2010-01The acquisition completes
Sources
Oldest first.
- FR5 Social network sites: definition, history, scholarship. Research and historical synthesis
- FR1 What I learned from Friendster. Founder interview
- FR4 Friendster valued at $26.4 million in sale. Transaction reporting
- FR2 Failure is a matter of perspective. Founder interview
- FR7 Social resilience in online communities: the autopsy of Friendster. Network research
- FR8 MOL Global registration statement. Primary disclosure