I think the author goes too far in saying that LinkedIn is squandering its position. I don't think that any company is under obligation to expand in bold new (headline-grabbing) directions just for the sake of doing so.
Personally, the interesting thing about LinkedIn is this: in the good old days, company org charts were considered top secret for fear that the leaders would be targeted by headhunters. Now that's all in the open. Similarly, job descriptions can be mined to give clues as to company strategy.
I haven't looked closely at the extras that LinkedIn offers, but for the casual user such as myself, it's true that not much has changed. But that's fine.
The other thing about LinkedIn is that it will always be similar to the rate-my-(professor,landlord,etc.) sites, in that it's extremely useful when you're making (or considering) a big decision, but most of the time doesn't need regular interaction.
Personally, the interesting thing about LinkedIn is this: in the good old days, company org charts were considered top secret for fear that the leaders would be targeted by headhunters. Now that's all in the open. Similarly, job descriptions can be mined to give clues as to company strategy.
I haven't looked closely at the extras that LinkedIn offers, but for the casual user such as myself, it's true that not much has changed. But that's fine.
The other thing about LinkedIn is that it will always be similar to the rate-my-(professor,landlord,etc.) sites, in that it's extremely useful when you're making (or considering) a big decision, but most of the time doesn't need regular interaction.