3 ms·

Disclaimer: I dont work/like Facebook, I dont use Facebook other than for some API testing projects. I use fake name, have one blurry photo and have only hand o

Disclaimer: I dont work/like Facebook, I dont use Facebook other than for some API testing projects. I use fake name, have one blurry photo and have only hand of real life friends mixed with strangers 20/80 ratio. > What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. you may be certain of that if you assume that Facebook monetary mission was to connect all humanbeings, or at least most of it. You cant make enough money off of it. But I think you wrong if you think that Facebook customers are users -- they are advertisers. Zuck said it himself years ago that stage 1 is to sign up everyone and thats only beginning of his idea. Now since he got everyone signed up its time to treat billion people like a test rabbits and see how to maximize revenues per user without pissing off too many of them at the same time. In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. Further, Facebook IPO comes in a perfect time. Zuck proved to investors that his idea is sustainable. Now its time to reward those who worked hard to achieve it and use stockpile of cash to accelerate and execute "milking cows" ideas. Brilliant! > The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable. > When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. 2004-2012 thats 8 years of a grow. I fail to recognize it as "fad" since all FB numbers grow users and revenue wise. Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business... > And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. Well, so far we dont have "another" Facebook, because Facebook based its success on a fact that humans, in general, are lazy. Nobody will be willing to switch unless you can benefit something out of it that outweigh reason to drop all your friends and start rebuilding your network all over again, somewhere else. Until then, Facebook is safe. > by the wonderful Diaspora* where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora? > Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? I think majority still search with Google and socialize with friends over Facebook. If you want to point threat to Google, point at Pinterest. Instead of Googling "cool bathroom ideas" and clicking "images", I go to Pinterest and have more pictures of beautiful inspirations for bathroom than I could ever analyze. This is a serious threat to Google. > But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), can you shed some light? What do you see that we dont? > I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline. So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up. Look, I know most hackers here are programmers. Most of us could write Facebook overnite today, and as a weekend project in 2004. This didnt happen. Facebook happened and one guy is worth $25 billion. I get it. Money-wise it hurts me sometime too. But the bottom line is, that you are trying to go against trend and your bitching is not different when 80years old librarian claimed that internet is evil and will kill libraries. Would you like internet to never happen because eventually libraries would be closed? If you go even more back in history, think about horse versus cars. I am pretty sure when cars came out, people riding horses were saying something: "oh, look at that piece of metal! it uses oil, produces deadly fumes and look how fast it goes! But everyone loves them! What a clueless sheep! I am sure it will take some time until enough people will kill themselves for everyone to realize horse-riding is more safe and secure and eventually everyone will switch back from cars to horses". Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?

pron 15y ago
> Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable. Facebook's IPO valuation was $75-100B, not $23B. That's a 75x-100x multiplier. > In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. I'm not saying Facebook will not be able to squeeze a healthy profit in the next 5 years or or so, but I don't think they'll justify the multiplier - maybe their stock will rise in the short term, but not enough in the long run. What I'm "seeing" is that for Facebook's future plans to work their market penetration has to maintain itself at the current levels. If Google+ or Diaspora* and whatever other competitors that join the game take even a 25% market share, then plans that require "almost everyone" to have a Facebook account (like other services that use a Facebook-only sign-on) will no longer be viable). And, of course, the next big thing will inevitably arrive. Like I said, this is a "black swan" market, and the point is that you can't exactly see what it is that will cause the decline, but investors assuming super-fast growth must also expect a decline among the successful. And, again, the question is not whether or not a company will do well, but how it will perform relative to expectations. > Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business... Yes, they are in business and doing well, but have already begun to disappoint the analysts. Also, Google has many products (many of them unsuccessful), and there were very few successful companies in history that continued to show good growth with only one product (oil companies, perhaps). By this time, Facebook should have had at least one more product that's showing a promise. They have none - all of their offerings are strongly tied to their social network, while Google's products (like Google Docs or GMail) are not directly tied to the success of search. > where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora? Diaspora* (with the asterisk) is the name of the project. > So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up... Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point? While I indeed think that Facebook and its business model do a lot of harm to people, I'm not saying the same about the idea of virtual social networks in general. I believe that Facebook has shown that the social network to be an essential service in the internet age, so, just like e-mail, it will be commoditized, with many different vendors with different offerings and different business model, will provide social network services all compatible with one another.

pron 15y ago

> Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable. Facebook's IPO valuation was $75-100B, not $23B. That's a 75x-100x multiplier. > In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. I'm not saying Facebook will not be able to squeeze a healthy profit in the next 5 years or or so, but I don't think they'll justify the multiplier - maybe their stock will rise in the short term, but not enough in the long run. What I'm "seeing" is that for Facebook's future plans to work their market penetration has to maintain itself at the current levels. If Google+ or Diaspora* and whatever other competitors that join the game take even a 25% market share, then plans that require "almost everyone" to have a Facebook account (like other services that use a Facebook-only sign-on) will no longer be viable). And, of course, the next big thing will inevitably arrive. Like I said, this is a "black swan" market, and the point is that you can't exactly see what it is that will cause the decline, but investors assuming super-fast growth must also expect a decline among the successful. And, again, the question is not whether or not a company will do well, but how it will perform relative to expectations. > Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business... Yes, they are in business and doing well, but have already begun to disappoint the analysts. Also, Google has many products (many of them unsuccessful), and there were very few successful companies in history that continued to show good growth with only one product (oil companies, perhaps). By this time, Facebook should have had at least one more product that's showing a promise. They have none - all of their offerings are strongly tied to their social network, while Google's products (like Google Docs or GMail) are not directly tied to the success of search. > where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora? Diaspora* (with the asterisk) is the name of the project. > So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up... Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point? While I indeed think that Facebook and its business model do a lot of harm to people, I'm not saying the same about the idea of virtual social networks in general. I believe that Facebook has shown that the social network to be an essential service in the internet age, so, just like e-mail, it will be commoditized, with many different vendors with different offerings and different business model, will provide social network services all compatible with one another.