Wow, this is just a horrible explanation of why Arrington is (supposedly) wrong. He does not refute or offer clarification on the money burn. Instead, he cite

Wow, this is just a horrible explanation of why Arrington is (supposedly) wrong. He does not refute or offer clarification on the money burn. Instead, he cites the user growth rate, but at what cost do those users come? Should we somehow assume that every new user has an immediate positive value? The 15bn valuation number is also an often mentioned fallacy. For their money, Microsoft got some Facebook stock and some advertising impressions. No one has ever really clarified how much of Microsofts $275m went to stock and how much went to advertising.