4 ms·

1. And with that, an entire industry was born. But two years later, Sandberg promptly killed it. What did Sandberg actually kill here? Isn't the "operating sys

1. And with that, an entire industry was born. But two years later, Sandberg promptly killed it. What did Sandberg actually kill here? Isn't the "operating system" referred to in the quote the overall Facebook platform, which still exists? 2. Is app.net really a success just because the kickstarter was funded? That's a bit hyperactive. Let's hold off judgment until a year or two and see if their revenues are larger than their costs. 3. The article author makes the naive assumption that a falling stock price can be interpreted as a business failure without actually looking at or mentioning Facebook's actual financials.

padobson 14y ago
1. I thought that the Dalton Caldwell quote I used explained that: If you are building an advertising/media business, it would then follow that you need to own all of the screen real-estate that users see. The next logical step would be to kill all 3rd-party clients, and lock down the data in the global firehose in order to control the “content”. - Dalton Caldwell Sorry if it was unclear. 2. I don't think app.net is a success yet. I'm not sure it can be. I don't think users want to pay for access to Twitter or Facebook, but I do think there is a place for charging developers for access to a social API. 3. I guess I figured Facebook's first earnings report as a public company would be common knowledge on a site like Hacker News. Here's an article that breaks Facebook down post-IPO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48770049/ns/business-us_business/#.UDlBXBQR9Hc http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48770049/ns/business-us_business... From the article: In its first earnings report as a public company, Facebook says revenue grew 32 percent to $1.18 billion in the second quarter, slightly above analyst expectations. It had a net loss of 8 cents per share, mainly due to stock compensation expenses following its IPO. Adjusted earnings of 12 cents per share matched Wall Street's expectations. Investors weren't impressed, though, and its stock fell in trading. For a company with growth and expectations like Facebook - something that's supposed to be as formidable or more so than Google - this couldn't be seen as anything but a disappointment.

padobson 14y ago

1. I thought that the Dalton Caldwell quote I used explained that: If you are building an advertising/media business, it would then follow that you need to own all of the screen real-estate that users see. The next logical step would be to kill all 3rd-party clients, and lock down the data in the global firehose in order to control the “content”. - Dalton Caldwell Sorry if it was unclear. 2. I don't think app.net is a success yet. I'm not sure it can be. I don't think users want to pay for access to Twitter or Facebook, but I do think there is a place for charging developers for access to a social API. 3. I guess I figured Facebook's first earnings report as a public company would be common knowledge on a site like Hacker News. Here's an article that breaks Facebook down post-IPO: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48770049/ns/business-us_business/#.UDlBXBQR9Hc http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48770049/ns/business-us_business... From the article: In its first earnings report as a public company, Facebook says revenue grew 32 percent to $1.18 billion in the second quarter, slightly above analyst expectations. It had a net loss of 8 cents per share, mainly due to stock compensation expenses following its IPO. Adjusted earnings of 12 cents per share matched Wall Street's expectations. Investors weren't impressed, though, and its stock fell in trading. For a company with growth and expectations like Facebook - something that's supposed to be as formidable or more so than Google - this couldn't be seen as anything but a disappointment.