When it comes to social networks, I think this space remains a natural monopoly (Just like OS was before internet days). And by creating open graph, facebook is eliminating need of another social network.
This article upsets me. Not just because it grosssly oversimplifies everything to make a point, nor because of its complete journalistic negligence (what about companies in competitive markets that have dominated their competitors? why isn't FB vs myspace like netflix vs blockbuster? etc etc. And AOL was merged...how does this related to FB? ugh). But for something deeper...
Maybe I just woke up in an angry mood, but this article is written for the sole purpose of being able to say "I told you so" if indeed somewhere down the line Facebook does tank. It is this "contrarian for publicity's sake" attitude that really creeps under my skin and makes me upset at the world.
Goldman Sachs is a whole different story. Look up their investment profit track record and it tells a very successful story.
So what I'm really saying is comparing Goldman to Newscorp or Time Warner is a very bad analogy.
This may still be the beginning of the end for Facebook, and I wouldn't be surprised if Goldman rips Facebook to shreds to extract maximum profit, but the authors analogy doesn't hold water.