back
7 comments
Something doesn't sit right about MySpace being called "Rupert Murdoch's phenomenally successful networking site" in this article.

It feels like MySpace completely collapsed within a very short time-frame of it being bought by News Corp. Nobody associates it with them, we all associate it with Tom. I guess this article was written just before the collapse, and it probably really felt to The Guardian that MySpace was a really powerful asset in Murdoch's hands forever.

Your memory is compressing the timeline. News Corp bought MySpace in 2005. And MySpace was still bigger than Facebook until mid-2008. Of course, it was no longer cool long before that event, but that problem doesn't show up in formal metrics until much later.

So even in early 2007, there was no hard signs of trouble at MySpace.

Does Cyworld, which is mentioned in the article as a "mobile" MySpace competitor, still exist?

It appears to still be around, but is it still used in a wider part of the population (in South Korea)? Couldn't find any user numbers, English Wikipedia is still in the present tense, though.

Edit: Ah, no, it's apparently dead since 2019, but someone tried to use the brand for some NFT and "Metaverse" thing.

Lol funny that this was written in 2007, only a short time before MySpace collapsed into nothing and the rise of FaceBook which itself is on a downwards slide now.

These monopolies seem to be ever lasting but luckily they're not.

I think social networks have unique dynamics that make them more vulnerable to collapse than other monopolies like Google or Ticketmaster. There is a heavy fashion aspect to social media that isn't present in businesses like advertising or ticketing.
I like how the article has a really clear “this is ancient” highlighted header
The problem with being 'The only Game in Town' is that the Game is always changing. Most monopolies are short-lived.