3 ms·
He's not dismissing it or saying that it's not valuable. And, for the record, AOL had a staggering percentage of eyeballs at their peak. I think the distincti
by webwright 19y ago
He's not dismissing it or saying that it's not valuable.
And, for the record, AOL had a staggering percentage of eyeballs at their peak.
I think the distinction is that Google is a technological advancement/phenomenon which seems lasting. Facebook is a SOCIAL phenomenon which (to Matt) does not.
I'm inclined to agree with him. I think we'll be talking about Facebook in a few years the way we talk about AOL right now.
- mattmaroon 19y agoI think they have legs. I mean, I think people will still use social networking in 5 years. And they may do it primarily on Facebook. I'm not trying to say that it or Facebook are a fad, or that Facebook isn't very good at it. I just don't think their value at the time will even be 1/10th of Google's because of the distinction you accurately summed up.
- volida 19y ago"will even be 1/10th" that will depend if they succeed to monetize their success. You can't be sure so sure any predictions for anything these days.
- mattmaroon 19y agoThey almost can't monetize like Google. Google is active. You go there because you're looking for something specific. It's really easy (now) to make money off of the guy who Google's for "ipod". On Facebook, you're relaxing. You're not in action mode. It's going to be hard for them to come up with ways to monetize passive traffic. The best anyone has done in offline media is show branding ads. This may work, and may even make them profitable, but it won't make them Google.
- blader 19y agoIf Google-like valuations is the bar for 'importance', then what's important on the internet other than Google?