4 ms·

This doesn't sound like a good idea at all to me. (http://siliconangle.com/ver2/sabackchan/2009/08/24/why-is-facebook-expanding-their-employee/ http://silicona

by rizzn 17y ago

This doesn't sound like a good idea at all to me. (http://siliconangle.com/ver2/sabackchan/2009/08/24/why-is-facebook-expanding-their-employee/ http://siliconangle.com/ver2/sabackchan/2009/08/24/why-is-fa...) MySpace and other startups succeed because they’re small and nimble – why the heck is Zuck on a mission to hire as many people as possible? It sounds like a recipe for failure. Am I wrong?

indigoviolet 17y ago
wait, myspace is now succeeding?
- rizzn 17y ago
  MySpace is in the black, and has been there quite a while. People tend to forget that.
  - unalone 17y ago
    They got in the black by giving up on being the social network for the world. They toned down and focused on music, because Facebook wiped its ass socially. MySpace now is not what MySpace wanted to be three years ago. Facebook is more ambitious, more talented, and more successful than MySpace. Their goal is to make a web site that revolutionizes how the world interacts with itself, and they've been doing an astonishingly good job at it. When I deleted my presence online, I kept Facebook, because it was capable of adapting to the lifestyle I wanted to lead. Perhaps one day Facebook will meet a challenge it cannot overcome. Until then, it hasn't failed with practically everything, and it's steamrollering every would-be competitor. It has every reason to expand.
    - rizzn 17y ago
      In other words, MySpace found a business model. I'd be happy if half the social networks I love could do the same, so I could quit worrying if they're doomed to shut down as soon as the VCs get bored with them.
      - unalone 17y ago
        That is an entirely nonsensical argument. MySpace and Facebook both make money off advertising. They both appeal to different sects of people, and MySpace simply gave up on spending money to compete with Facebook. Facebook, meanwhile, has no competition. None. They are free to expand as they see fit, and currently they're in the black and so can afford expansion.
        run4yourlives 17y ago
        and currently they're in the black and so can afford expansion. Citation please. They owe a lot of people a lot of money.
        rizzn 17y ago
        They're just barely in the black, if at all. Seems like I vaguely remember an AllThingsD report that they were might hit revenue positive briefly this year before they'd quickly blow it all on new hires. I don't know where you're getting this Facebook has no competition business. Everything on the web has competition, and Facebook is no exception.
        unalone 17y ago
        They're just barely in the black, if at all. Seems like I vaguely remember an AllThingsD report that they were might hit revenue positive briefly this year before they'd quickly blow it all on new hires. That implies that they're making an impressive revenue. Right now, Facebook has money to burn. If they find that they can't increase revenue, they'll be able to significantly cut back and make a profit, similar to what MySpace did recently. For now, they don't need to worry about that. I don't know where you're getting this Facebook has no competition business. Everything on the web has competition, and Facebook is no exception. According to Alexa, Facebook has five times the daily reach of MySpace, which is its next-closest competitor. It's got six times the reach of Twitter, which is called its competitor even though it's not. It's fifteen times larger than the number three network, which is Hi 5. That's user interaction. Facebook also has more pictures than any other web site in existence, more than Flickr, which is the largest photo storage site in existence. Barack Obama, who may not be the largest Facebook page, has twice the followers of APlusK on Twitter, and on Facebook he has vastly more functionality than APlusK does on Twitter: he can push nearly anything at users directly from the site, no third-party needed. It's hard to track Note use and Video use since Facebook's based on privacy. However, I'd make a bet that Facebook's videos are enough to place it in the Top 10 for video sites worldwide. I don't know how I'd compare notes. Google Search has competition, because it's possible to force search engine use through products. (I've used Bing a few times in the last month because I see it when I search on Facebook.) Yahoo Mail has competition, because its service has certain aspects that are unpleasant. (Email ads, for instance.) Facebook has none. In fact, because Facebook's core service is so incredibly tight, I'd bet that Facebook could upgrade nothing for two-three years, and it would still maintain its lead over competitors, solely for the reason that it can't lose that lead unless users see something elsewhere that's so compelling it makes them switch. I can't think of anything that compelling, save perhaps mobile networking, and Facebook's already the top phone-based social network despite not yet having location-based technologies.
tsally 17y ago
In the long term, Facebook's current product probably wont matter too much in terms of monetary success. All that is important is that Facebook is popular enough right now to corner part of the talent market. I would imagine that once you have X number of skilled hackers at your company, your chance in succeeding in any business venture go way up. The way I see it, Facebook just wants to higher the superstars right now and they expect the money to follow later. Google did a similar thing (although Google had a clearer path to monetization).
- rizzn 17y ago
  I suppose. I see more than a few dozen ways that Facebook could launch game changing monetization methods in the past several years and have let them all slip through their fingers. And then, of course, you see the posts at Valleywag and ATD showing them doing little more than playing ping-pong and video games all day, and I'm left wondering if this talent grab ploy over there isn't just turning good coders into good slackers. I'm not saying FB's a titanic, but they do an awful lot of deck-chair re-arranging there, it seems like.
  - tsally 17y ago
    I think it's pretty unlikely that Facebook missed dozens of game changing monetization methods. They've got very smart people working there, and even if all Facebook execs had zero business sense, their VCs have plenty of access to people with that kind of experience. Also, Valleywag is not a very reliable news source. EDIT: Toned down my post, sorry I was being obnoxious.
    - rizzn 17y ago
      i've been covering Facebook as a major wheelhouse for years, and I've noticed at least a dozen I could name if pressed. That means there's probably a lot more I haven't thought of. Valleywag isn't exactly the best hard news source, but when it comes to corporate culture type stuff, which is what i'm referring to, they're generally not bad, particularly in their hey-day when Boutin, Owen and the rest of the gang were still there.

by rizzn 17y ago

indigoviolet 17y ago

wait, myspace is now succeeding?

rizzn 17y ago
MySpace is in the black, and has been there quite a while. People tend to forget that.
- unalone 17y ago
  They got in the black by giving up on being the social network for the world. They toned down and focused on music, because Facebook wiped its ass socially. MySpace now is not what MySpace wanted to be three years ago. Facebook is more ambitious, more talented, and more successful than MySpace. Their goal is to make a web site that revolutionizes how the world interacts with itself, and they've been doing an astonishingly good job at it. When I deleted my presence online, I kept Facebook, because it was capable of adapting to the lifestyle I wanted to lead. Perhaps one day Facebook will meet a challenge it cannot overcome. Until then, it hasn't failed with practically everything, and it's steamrollering every would-be competitor. It has every reason to expand.
  - rizzn 17y ago
    In other words, MySpace found a business model. I'd be happy if half the social networks I love could do the same, so I could quit worrying if they're doomed to shut down as soon as the VCs get bored with them.
    - unalone 17y ago
      That is an entirely nonsensical argument. MySpace and Facebook both make money off advertising. They both appeal to different sects of people, and MySpace simply gave up on spending money to compete with Facebook. Facebook, meanwhile, has no competition. None. They are free to expand as they see fit, and currently they're in the black and so can afford expansion.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        and currently they're in the black and so can afford expansion. Citation please. They owe a lot of people a lot of money.
      - rizzn 17y ago
        They're just barely in the black, if at all. Seems like I vaguely remember an AllThingsD report that they were might hit revenue positive briefly this year before they'd quickly blow it all on new hires. I don't know where you're getting this Facebook has no competition business. Everything on the web has competition, and Facebook is no exception.
        unalone 17y ago
        They're just barely in the black, if at all. Seems like I vaguely remember an AllThingsD report that they were might hit revenue positive briefly this year before they'd quickly blow it all on new hires. That implies that they're making an impressive revenue. Right now, Facebook has money to burn. If they find that they can't increase revenue, they'll be able to significantly cut back and make a profit, similar to what MySpace did recently. For now, they don't need to worry about that. I don't know where you're getting this Facebook has no competition business. Everything on the web has competition, and Facebook is no exception. According to Alexa, Facebook has five times the daily reach of MySpace, which is its next-closest competitor. It's got six times the reach of Twitter, which is called its competitor even though it's not. It's fifteen times larger than the number three network, which is Hi 5. That's user interaction. Facebook also has more pictures than any other web site in existence, more than Flickr, which is the largest photo storage site in existence. Barack Obama, who may not be the largest Facebook page, has twice the followers of APlusK on Twitter, and on Facebook he has vastly more functionality than APlusK does on Twitter: he can push nearly anything at users directly from the site, no third-party needed. It's hard to track Note use and Video use since Facebook's based on privacy. However, I'd make a bet that Facebook's videos are enough to place it in the Top 10 for video sites worldwide. I don't know how I'd compare notes. Google Search has competition, because it's possible to force search engine use through products. (I've used Bing a few times in the last month because I see it when I search on Facebook.) Yahoo Mail has competition, because its service has certain aspects that are unpleasant. (Email ads, for instance.) Facebook has none. In fact, because Facebook's core service is so incredibly tight, I'd bet that Facebook could upgrade nothing for two-three years, and it would still maintain its lead over competitors, solely for the reason that it can't lose that lead unless users see something elsewhere that's so compelling it makes them switch. I can't think of anything that compelling, save perhaps mobile networking, and Facebook's already the top phone-based social network despite not yet having location-based technologies.

tsally 17y ago

In the long term, Facebook's current product probably wont matter too much in terms of monetary success. All that is important is that Facebook is popular enough right now to corner part of the talent market. I would imagine that once you have X number of skilled hackers at your company, your chance in succeeding in any business venture go way up. The way I see it, Facebook just wants to higher the superstars right now and they expect the money to follow later. Google did a similar thing (although Google had a clearer path to monetization).

rizzn 17y ago
I suppose. I see more than a few dozen ways that Facebook could launch game changing monetization methods in the past several years and have let them all slip through their fingers. And then, of course, you see the posts at Valleywag and ATD showing them doing little more than playing ping-pong and video games all day, and I'm left wondering if this talent grab ploy over there isn't just turning good coders into good slackers. I'm not saying FB's a titanic, but they do an awful lot of deck-chair re-arranging there, it seems like.
- tsally 17y ago
  I think it's pretty unlikely that Facebook missed dozens of game changing monetization methods. They've got very smart people working there, and even if all Facebook execs had zero business sense, their VCs have plenty of access to people with that kind of experience. Also, Valleywag is not a very reliable news source. EDIT: Toned down my post, sorry I was being obnoxious.
  - rizzn 17y ago
    i've been covering Facebook as a major wheelhouse for years, and I've noticed at least a dozen I could name if pressed. That means there's probably a lot more I haven't thought of. Valleywag isn't exactly the best hard news source, but when it comes to corporate culture type stuff, which is what i'm referring to, they're generally not bad, particularly in their hey-day when Boutin, Owen and the rest of the gang were still there.