3 ms·

I'd say Paul is biased on this one. His own startup revolves around people keeping track on their friends, and their company's value is on knowing who you are,

by ardit33 19y ago

I'd say Paul is biased on this one. His own startup revolves around people keeping track on their friends, and their company's value is on knowing who you are, and who you are connected to. So, since is selling lemonade, he is telling you that lemonade is really good and valuable.

mhb 19y ago
Or you might conclude that he is confident enough that he is right about this that he started a company in order to benefit from it.
- ardit33 19y ago
  True. He really believes it (and he might be very right about it, i am not discussing that point), but the essay would have been more powerful coming out from somebody that doesn't directly benefit so much from it. A not so great analogy; would be real estate agents telling you "it is always a great time to buy a house", or "buying a house is a great investment" etc.. Clearly a conflict of interest. And, just because a real estate agent buys a house himself, doesn't make him necessary right. Anyways, I still think Facebook will do great, but 15 billions is a strech. Maybe it would be sticky for a long time, but I still remember, when everybody I knew, my age, was using ICQ in high-school, then AIM in college, (you couldn't survive without it at campus), and then slowly people moved away from it, and now I barely use it. Maybe, once people added everybody they know, and the novelty wears off, facebook will slowly fade also. Who knows.
  - brlewis 19y ago
    Isn't it more like a homeowner saying that buying a house is a great investment?
    - pchristensen 19y ago
      That would be if a FriendFeed user wrote this article. Paul is like the home builder or developer. He has product that he needs to move and he's marketing. (I'm sure he believes it too, but that is the effect of his writing. But it's no different than pg writing about startups or Joel writing about issue tracking)
      - brlewis 19y ago
        The benefit he's selling isn't one that friendfeed users get. Only the owners of friendfeed as a company can monetize the social graph. I don't think friendfeed is looking for acquisition, so I see the financial value of social graphs as a benefit (or potential benefit) that he owns himself, not as one he needs to sell.
  - Goladus 19y ago
    He gives verifiable evidence, uses clear logic, and doesn't try to disguise the opinions. Worrying about conflict of interest is more or less ad hominem in this case. It's a mild curiosity worth knowing, but that's all.
- paul 19y ago
  Neither, actually. FriendFeed doesn't gather much identity information, certainly not like Facebook. FriendFeed is more content oriented, which is valuable for different reasons. I wrote the blog post because I thought people might be interested in understanding what exactly they are building over there. I don't particularly care what people think of FB or social networks though.
ryanb 19y ago
Where did all the conspiracy theorists come from? I think Paul is right on the money here.

by ardit33 19y ago

mhb 19y ago

Or you might conclude that he is confident enough that he is right about this that he started a company in order to benefit from it.

ardit33 19y ago
True. He really believes it (and he might be very right about it, i am not discussing that point), but the essay would have been more powerful coming out from somebody that doesn't directly benefit so much from it. A not so great analogy; would be real estate agents telling you "it is always a great time to buy a house", or "buying a house is a great investment" etc.. Clearly a conflict of interest. And, just because a real estate agent buys a house himself, doesn't make him necessary right. Anyways, I still think Facebook will do great, but 15 billions is a strech. Maybe it would be sticky for a long time, but I still remember, when everybody I knew, my age, was using ICQ in high-school, then AIM in college, (you couldn't survive without it at campus), and then slowly people moved away from it, and now I barely use it. Maybe, once people added everybody they know, and the novelty wears off, facebook will slowly fade also. Who knows.
- brlewis 19y ago
  Isn't it more like a homeowner saying that buying a house is a great investment?
  - pchristensen 19y ago
    That would be if a FriendFeed user wrote this article. Paul is like the home builder or developer. He has product that he needs to move and he's marketing. (I'm sure he believes it too, but that is the effect of his writing. But it's no different than pg writing about startups or Joel writing about issue tracking)
    - brlewis 19y ago
      The benefit he's selling isn't one that friendfeed users get. Only the owners of friendfeed as a company can monetize the social graph. I don't think friendfeed is looking for acquisition, so I see the financial value of social graphs as a benefit (or potential benefit) that he owns himself, not as one he needs to sell.
- Goladus 19y ago
  He gives verifiable evidence, uses clear logic, and doesn't try to disguise the opinions. Worrying about conflict of interest is more or less ad hominem in this case. It's a mild curiosity worth knowing, but that's all.
paul 19y ago
Neither, actually. FriendFeed doesn't gather much identity information, certainly not like Facebook. FriendFeed is more content oriented, which is valuable for different reasons. I wrote the blog post because I thought people might be interested in understanding what exactly they are building over there. I don't particularly care what people think of FB or social networks though.

ryanb 19y ago

Where did all the conspiracy theorists come from? I think Paul is right on the money here.