4 ms·
Done? Really? He's a proven winner, at this stage. He's got billions in revenue, and took a startup from "the kids at that one college" phase to being one of
by bmelton 15y ago
Done? Really?
He's a proven winner, at this stage. He's got billions in revenue, and took a startup from "the kids at that one college" phase to being one of the most used applications on the planet.
Facebook has more users than Microsoft was able to sell copies of Windows 7 to.
I think "done" is a knee-jerk response, as I'm betting that he wouldn't have a hard time finding a team, or funding, or be hampered in any way in his ability to execute on whatever he decides to do post-Facebook, even if he screws it all up.
- its_so_on 15y agosee my other comment. The only case in which he's done with facebook is iff it is after he made a massively inflated bubble company out of it, and it then fails a la myspace and loads of previous "social" properties with similar models and user demographics. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but the risk and precedent is there. There are two cases. He stays and grows or he leaves in flames. That's why I'd hate to be in his shoes. I mean, to bring it back to my instagram example, I don't personally even know the name of the founders (two I think, from a wikipedia article I looked at). If one of them were replaced by someone else, selling all his equity and the other guy took his place, would anyone care? but can zuckerberg say, okay I'm done now this guy is going to take over? No, he just can't say that. So, he is like Larry Ellison but without legions of corporate salespeople, and his name is intimately associated with the facebook undertaking. This would be different if the valuations with his private equity deals were in the millions - but they valued the company at 50 billion. So, really, I would not like to be in his shoes, sorry. (I'd love his cash though). If I could trade places with either the Instagram founders or Zuckerberg, it would be with the former, is all I'm saying. Your preferences could differ.
- moe 15y agobut can zuckerberg say, okay I'm done now this guy is going to take over? What makes you think he couldn't?
- eaurouge 15y agoFacebook has more users than Microsoft was able to sell copies of Windows 7 to. Not commenting on any other points raised in this thread except to say: you can't compare Facebook users to Microsoft customers, there's a big difference. Edit: To the downvoter. This is not a Facebook vs Microsoft argument. Users don't pay for the product, customers (I'm assuming they bought the software and didn't pirate it) do. It's not the same metric.
- rhizome 15y agoFacebook users are not Facebook's customers.
- MaysonL 15y agoWindows users (for the most part) are not Microsoft customers.
- rhizome 15y agoI know what you're saying, that actual retail sales are not a big deal for them. However, you're making a category error in that "Windows purchases" (as well as Office, etc.) are what defines their customers of Microsoft's software arm where there is no parallel situation on the Facebook side. That is, at all levels, Microsoft's customers are interacting with the same stuff: Microsoft software. For Facebook it's different. Facebook's customers are consuming and interacting with an entirely different resource than Facebook's users. In fact, I'd say that Facebook's customers (advertisers et al) actually have very little social interaction with each other on an experiential basis compared to Facebook's users. This is to say that Facebook likely puts a lot of work into ensuring that nothing on the customer side gets inadvertently shared, unlike the user side.