3 ms·

See, I hate arguments for this. How many new accounts did you create annually 10 years ago? How many new accounts did you create annually 5 years ago? How many

See, I hate arguments for this. How many new accounts did you create annually 10 years ago? How many new accounts did you create annually 5 years ago? How many new accounts did you create this year? People don't mind switching, and in fact they don't mind having simultaneous accounts. People on this forum think that they are 'special' inasmuch they don't mind negotiating multiple accounts with relative ease, but it's an inevitable tactic. Facebook can be used to login to other sites, but with Google+ and Twitter and the $20 share price, nobody small wants to bet on Facebook. It's like making an Xbox 360 exclusive game if there was a $0 porting cost. If Facebook is bought out by Microsoft or Apple, it will truly be a threat as a universal login system. But until then, they will die a death from a 1000 paper cuts.

robryan 14y ago
I see facebooks problem right now more as an inability to effective monetize their users, rather than at risk of a large set exodus any time soon. Facebook is very ingrained in what so many people and businesses do now unlike any other web service has been. You see Facebook branding on most businesses ads and physical locations. Of course it is possible to overcome these network effects but I think that if they are smart enough they can keep it going. Then it just becomes a question of what valuation they can sustain without being so invasive as to completely alienate their userbase. On an anecdotal level I have seen people try things like Path, Instagram, the location based networks etc. Most when the mental overhead of all the social networks get to much eventually just mainly settle back on Facebook (with Twitter being the only real exception)
- chii 14y ago
  > an inability to effective monetize their users this is the problem - facebook's value proposition for a user is not Facebook itself, but the ability to interact with another person easily (games, photoshares, pokes etc). However, this isn't actually worth very much money, and to try to extract that from the user is fruitless. The only real way to monetize is really to sell behavioural data of its users to advertisers. There is real value in that, even if the users don't like it. But its a double edged sword, and this sword is what is going to kill facebook!
  - robryan 14y ago
    Or Facebook could accept a lower rate of monetization and not extend the reach of their advertising. Sure this is a horrible outcome for the share price but could be a better outcome for running a long term sustainable company.
    - chii 14y ago
      yep. But if you think about the incentives of a CEO (not mark, as its his baby, but just a CEO generally for a company facing this sort of decision), they have every incentive to do a "bad" thing that yields short to medium term benefit, at the cost of long term benefit (coz by then, they would've exited with their millions).

robryan 14y ago

I see facebooks problem right now more as an inability to effective monetize their users, rather than at risk of a large set exodus any time soon. Facebook is very ingrained in what so many people and businesses do now unlike any other web service has been. You see Facebook branding on most businesses ads and physical locations. Of course it is possible to overcome these network effects but I think that if they are smart enough they can keep it going. Then it just becomes a question of what valuation they can sustain without being so invasive as to completely alienate their userbase. On an anecdotal level I have seen people try things like Path, Instagram, the location based networks etc. Most when the mental overhead of all the social networks get to much eventually just mainly settle back on Facebook (with Twitter being the only real exception)

chii 14y ago
> an inability to effective monetize their users this is the problem - facebook's value proposition for a user is not Facebook itself, but the ability to interact with another person easily (games, photoshares, pokes etc). However, this isn't actually worth very much money, and to try to extract that from the user is fruitless. The only real way to monetize is really to sell behavioural data of its users to advertisers. There is real value in that, even if the users don't like it. But its a double edged sword, and this sword is what is going to kill facebook!
- robryan 14y ago
  Or Facebook could accept a lower rate of monetization and not extend the reach of their advertising. Sure this is a horrible outcome for the share price but could be a better outcome for running a long term sustainable company.
  - chii 14y ago
    yep. But if you think about the incentives of a CEO (not mark, as its his baby, but just a CEO generally for a company facing this sort of decision), they have every incentive to do a "bad" thing that yields short to medium term benefit, at the cost of long term benefit (coz by then, they would've exited with their millions).