Why is there strong competition for every other social media site? This seems to come down to a few market dynamics:
1. The major influencers who adopt it and bring their followers
2. New networks bring new leaderboards which attract the next generation that has zero equity on the existing sites
3. Regular engagement is critical, otherwise every network faces a death spiral
4. Engagement required to drive ad revenue
LinkedIn is notable for not being affected by these:
1. There are no major influencers (though they tried.) The most influential person on LinkedIn is very close in value to the median software engineer
2. There are no significant leaderboards (though they tried.) Few people care how many followers others have
3. Regular engagement doesn't matter, because it is still the Schelling point for irregular life events (ie needing a job.)
4. Most of their revenue comes from subscriptions for recruiters, so the lower engagement is not an existential crisis.
LinkedIn is an always-on jobs expo pretending to be social media. Even the executives think they are social media. They are actually something else.
Some angles to compete:
1. Build better data for an underserved segment. Obvious choice is SWE, but MSFT owns Github as a firewall here. Another candidate is the top 1% of executives: they might be the major influencers that haven't been activated yet.
2. Build an identity layer that mitigates risk of fake job seekers. LinkedIn has halfheartedly tried this but their inertia might be an opportunity.
3. Build the Github for other segments: the verifiable portfolios that show real work.
4. Build a frontrunner to the hiring pipeline. If every star candidate can be identified three months before they start looking on LinkedIn, the recruiting system there will fall apart.
5. Build the workplace social media network that users actually want to use daily. LinkedIn failed at this, and their effort indicates they see the risk of disruption coming from here.
Some existing companies that are on the right track:
1. Slack. Already owns DAU for work, well-funded, competes with MSFT in many domains. 30% confident they've considered moving into this space, but Benioff getting AI-pilled will slow it down.
2. Behance. Owned the market for designers, sold to Adobe, game over.
2. Glassdoor. Useful data that LinkedIn doesn't own, but they seem to have embraced the Yelp business model instead.
3. Fishbowl. Daily engagement solved but they've backed into a local maxima.
4. Upwork. Stuck with low-end brand that will prevent them from winning this market.
5. X. Has all the pieces except for a leader who cares about a jobs board. Would need a certain kind of leader for their jobs product to get it to win.
6. Every other talent startup: fighting for the right revenue, but they almost always approach it from the transactional staffing model or the ATS subscription model. Would need someone to buy all of them up and launch a network with 100M profiles on day one.
There is actually a LinkedIn competitor being developed. I know the founders of a company building a professional networking and business intelligence platform centered on verified skills & identity, and reputation. It has features that will entice individuals and organizations to move away from LinkedIn. It would be a great company to invest in.
This. Design tends to explore a latent space that isn't well documented. There is no Stack Overflow or Github for design. The closest we have are open sourced design systems like Material Design, and portfolio sites like Behance. These are not legible reference implementations for most use cases.
If LLMs only disrupt software engineering and content slop, the economy is going to undergo rapid changes. Every car wash will have a forward deployed engineer maintaining their mobile app, website, backend, and LLM-augmented customer service. That happens even if LLMs plateau in six months.
This. They executed an attack on 30 companies at once! AI increases shots on goal here and rapidly increases tempo. There’s no reason this can’t add a zero day and target 50000 companies at once, except for network observers like CF
It really is a higher level language for coding though. Not as precise as Fortran but far more upside. I imagine monks bemoaning the printing press that took away the joy of their perfectly handwritten bibles they made in solitude
Welcome to HN! I don't think you understood TFA. A) LLM prompting is categorically different from Fortan, not another version of it that's 'less precise'. B) 'upside' again is entirely different from craftsmanship.
This is a broader issue about how where we place blame when LLMs are involved. Humans seem to want to parrot the work and take credit when it’s correct while deflecting blame when it’s wrong. With a few well placed lawsuits this paradigm will shift imho
In my neck of the woods, vibe coding is enabling a lot more curiosity among devs. Gen Z vibe coders alternate between building something and trying a new tactic to go viral on TikTok. There is definitely a lot of shoulds still but the curiosity is there.
This. I watched my friends become Dads and change a bit, but I couldn't quite put it to words. I would feel scared to hold any baby. Then son is born, I'm trying everything to help him burp, and I'm learning the tonal language of his cries. Every taxi driver is a possible Dad I can relate to, and every kid is a glimpse into the future.
LinkedIn is notable for not being affected by these: 1. There are no major influencers (though they tried.) The most influential person on LinkedIn is very close in value to the median software engineer 2. There are no significant leaderboards (though they tried.) Few people care how many followers others have 3. Regular engagement doesn't matter, because it is still the Schelling point for irregular life events (ie needing a job.) 4. Most of their revenue comes from subscriptions for recruiters, so the lower engagement is not an existential crisis.
LinkedIn is an always-on jobs expo pretending to be social media. Even the executives think they are social media. They are actually something else.
Some angles to compete: 1. Build better data for an underserved segment. Obvious choice is SWE, but MSFT owns Github as a firewall here. Another candidate is the top 1% of executives: they might be the major influencers that haven't been activated yet. 2. Build an identity layer that mitigates risk of fake job seekers. LinkedIn has halfheartedly tried this but their inertia might be an opportunity. 3. Build the Github for other segments: the verifiable portfolios that show real work. 4. Build a frontrunner to the hiring pipeline. If every star candidate can be identified three months before they start looking on LinkedIn, the recruiting system there will fall apart. 5. Build the workplace social media network that users actually want to use daily. LinkedIn failed at this, and their effort indicates they see the risk of disruption coming from here.
Some existing companies that are on the right track: 1. Slack. Already owns DAU for work, well-funded, competes with MSFT in many domains. 30% confident they've considered moving into this space, but Benioff getting AI-pilled will slow it down. 2. Behance. Owned the market for designers, sold to Adobe, game over. 2. Glassdoor. Useful data that LinkedIn doesn't own, but they seem to have embraced the Yelp business model instead. 3. Fishbowl. Daily engagement solved but they've backed into a local maxima. 4. Upwork. Stuck with low-end brand that will prevent them from winning this market. 5. X. Has all the pieces except for a leader who cares about a jobs board. Would need a certain kind of leader for their jobs product to get it to win. 6. Every other talent startup: fighting for the right revenue, but they almost always approach it from the transactional staffing model or the ATS subscription model. Would need someone to buy all of them up and launch a network with 100M profiles on day one.