5 ms·

Facebook: FarmVille is bigger than Twitter

37 points by mun411 17y ago

ThomPete 17y ago
"The company also noted that one of its apps, 'Farmville', is more popular than its major rival in the social-networking world – Twitter." Say what? How on earth is a game a competitor to Twitter?
- nooneelse 17y ago
  The "its" in "its major rival" is facebook not farmville. They are saying that even some non-central and fully disposable part of facebook has more users than twitter.
  - FreeRadical 17y ago
    This reminds me of Microsoft saying they will 'grow another Google' over the next few years (a few years ago). At the time Microsofts market cap was c.$250bn and Google's was $100bn. Now the Microsoft market cap is $264bn and Google is $186bn.
    - notauser 17y ago
      Bing might actually be heading towards a major slice of the search engine market. Right now everyone's browser defaults to Google search. Partly this is because most people still have Win XP and when they got those the default (Windows live search) was horrible. There was a reason to switch to Google. These days Bing's results are good enough that most normal people wouldn't bother to change their browser default if it was set to Bing. Thanks to the good publicity it's been getting in the main stream media it looks like a _lot_ of people are going to upgrade to Win 7, including the crowd of late-adopters that stuck with XP. All of these people will get Bing by default with their new install/computer, and a lot of them won't bother to change it. A box you type in to get search results when you open the Internet window? Yep, I can 'google' from here. It would take a bad experience to drive these users to change their home page to Google again.
      - DougBTX 17y ago
        Also, even if you do realise you can change which search engine backs the search box in the top right, and manage to get to the add provider gallery, Google is way down on the second page.
      - apgwoz 17y ago
        And if you see google as a search company, than this is ba news. Too bad they are an ad company.
        notauser 17y ago
        A drop in search volume doesn't impact their content network ads, you are correct. However I don't think Microsoft will let Google buy space on Bing to place their ads. Therefore a drop in search volume leads to a cut in ad revenue. Even if placement on Bing for ad words was possible Google would have to give Microsoft a cut - right now they keep 100% of search revenue (minus operating costs). Unless Bing is substantially cheaper to run than Google that would work out badly for revenue per ad. Worst of all from their perspective a drop in search volume would lead to a loss of opportunity to push news, gmail, youtube and especially maps/local search. These related properties must be benefiting heavily from their top placement in Google search results.
      - berntb 17y ago
        So, an OK replacement that comes with the monopolist OS installation and use that to beat the market leader. It worked with Internet Explorer. No reason to worry, then? I mean, it is not like Microsoft would do something immoral like e.g. cripple the state of art for years, to protect some other business area, right? :-(
johndevor 17y ago
"...and 1.4 million photos are uploaded a second." I hope that's not true. ;)
- unalone 17y ago
  Wait. Why not? Why the winky face? I'm confused by your statement.
  - johndevor 17y ago
    1.4 million photos per second. If you turn that into per day it's 1.69e11 photos (you write out the zeros). That's just not possible.
    - tome 17y ago
      Close. It's 120 billion per day. And with 250 million Facebook users that's 500 photos per user per day. That sounds rather a lot.
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        It could happen: http://www.kontrastblog.com/2008/02/13/dew-life-recording-interface-by-nec/ http://www.kontrastblog.com/2008/02/13/dew-life-recording-in...
      - johndevor 17y ago
        From facebooks own statistics page: "More than 2.5 billion photos uploaded to the site each month" http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics I don't know where the article got their statistics.
- MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
  Looks like the article has been updated. Now they're saying 1000 per second, which is much more believable.
Tichy 17y ago
The number of people on earth taking a dump every day is also bigger than the number of users of Twitter.
mixmax 17y ago
And most importantly - Farmville actually has an income model....
richardburton 17y ago
Comparing FarmVille and Twitter is like trying to compare blunt hammer to a swiss army knife. A hammer is fun for doing simple, satisfying things like banging in nails and smash old glass window pains. Twitter, on the other hand, is like networking on acid - it's incredible & there's so much more you can do with it.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Facebook, and I say this with great admiration, is the devil. First they use your friends to suck you into joining the site. Then they amuse all of your bored friends with games, then they use the games to get those same friends to lure in more FaceBook users and to market/sell things to people already there. It's referral marketing taken to the nth degree. It's been obvious to me for some time now that it has more legs than Twitter, now it looks like it has more volume (and a better business model) as well. (sigh)
c00p3r 17y ago
Why not? Farmville is both useless and stupid, while Twitter is just useless. People favor stupid time pass.
- nailer 17y ago
  Quick textbites from people I'm interested in, that I can read at a glance from my pocket whenever I'm bored, are not useless. If you don't understand the appeal of that I don't really think you understand Twitter.
Tawheed 17y ago
I think this comparison shows a fundamental difference between Facebook and Twitter. Twitter is really trying to find a use-case and serve a purpose that in some way adds to the productivity of this planet. Whereas Facebook's goal seems to suck as much of people's time as possible by having them do menial activities, while turning a profit. While the two companies may be in the same "industry" -- they certainly have very different missions (I think), whether they realize it or not.
rwhitman 17y ago
My mom doesn't get Twitter. My mom f-ing LOVES FarmVille. 'Nuff said.
ct 17y ago
Both are fads. Give it another year and we'll be onto another FB app and another social network website that lets you only send 80 characters at a time (it fits into a nice *nix console window!)

37 points by mun411 17y ago

"The company also noted that one of its apps, 'Farmville', is more popular than its major rival in the social-networking world – Twitter." Say what? How on earth is a game a competitor to Twitter?

nooneelse 17y ago
The "its" in "its major rival" is facebook not farmville. They are saying that even some non-central and fully disposable part of facebook has more users than twitter.
- FreeRadical 17y ago
  This reminds me of Microsoft saying they will 'grow another Google' over the next few years (a few years ago). At the time Microsofts market cap was c.$250bn and Google's was $100bn. Now the Microsoft market cap is $264bn and Google is $186bn.
  - notauser 17y ago
    Bing might actually be heading towards a major slice of the search engine market. Right now everyone's browser defaults to Google search. Partly this is because most people still have Win XP and when they got those the default (Windows live search) was horrible. There was a reason to switch to Google. These days Bing's results are good enough that most normal people wouldn't bother to change their browser default if it was set to Bing. Thanks to the good publicity it's been getting in the main stream media it looks like a _lot_ of people are going to upgrade to Win 7, including the crowd of late-adopters that stuck with XP. All of these people will get Bing by default with their new install/computer, and a lot of them won't bother to change it. A box you type in to get search results when you open the Internet window? Yep, I can 'google' from here. It would take a bad experience to drive these users to change their home page to Google again.
    - DougBTX 17y ago
      Also, even if you do realise you can change which search engine backs the search box in the top right, and manage to get to the add provider gallery, Google is way down on the second page.
    - apgwoz 17y ago
      And if you see google as a search company, than this is ba news. Too bad they are an ad company.
      - notauser 17y ago
        A drop in search volume doesn't impact their content network ads, you are correct. However I don't think Microsoft will let Google buy space on Bing to place their ads. Therefore a drop in search volume leads to a cut in ad revenue. Even if placement on Bing for ad words was possible Google would have to give Microsoft a cut - right now they keep 100% of search revenue (minus operating costs). Unless Bing is substantially cheaper to run than Google that would work out badly for revenue per ad. Worst of all from their perspective a drop in search volume would lead to a loss of opportunity to push news, gmail, youtube and especially maps/local search. These related properties must be benefiting heavily from their top placement in Google search results.
    - berntb 17y ago
      So, an OK replacement that comes with the monopolist OS installation and use that to beat the market leader. It worked with Internet Explorer. No reason to worry, then? I mean, it is not like Microsoft would do something immoral like e.g. cripple the state of art for years, to protect some other business area, right? :-(

johndevor 17y ago

"...and 1.4 million photos are uploaded a second." I hope that's not true. ;)

unalone 17y ago
Wait. Why not? Why the winky face? I'm confused by your statement.
- johndevor 17y ago
  1.4 million photos per second. If you turn that into per day it's 1.69e11 photos (you write out the zeros). That's just not possible.
  - tome 17y ago
    Close. It's 120 billion per day. And with 250 million Facebook users that's 500 photos per user per day. That sounds rather a lot.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      It could happen: http://www.kontrastblog.com/2008/02/13/dew-life-recording-interface-by-nec/ http://www.kontrastblog.com/2008/02/13/dew-life-recording-in...
    - johndevor 17y ago
      From facebooks own statistics page: "More than 2.5 billion photos uploaded to the site each month" http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics I don't know where the article got their statistics.
MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
Looks like the article has been updated. Now they're saying 1000 per second, which is much more believable.

Tichy 17y ago

The number of people on earth taking a dump every day is also bigger than the number of users of Twitter.

mixmax 17y ago

And most importantly - Farmville actually has an income model....

richardburton 17y ago

Comparing FarmVille and Twitter is like trying to compare blunt hammer to a swiss army knife. A hammer is fun for doing simple, satisfying things like banging in nails and smash old glass window pains. Twitter, on the other hand, is like networking on acid - it's incredible & there's so much more you can do with it.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Facebook, and I say this with great admiration, is the devil. First they use your friends to suck you into joining the site. Then they amuse all of your bored friends with games, then they use the games to get those same friends to lure in more FaceBook users and to market/sell things to people already there. It's referral marketing taken to the nth degree. It's been obvious to me for some time now that it has more legs than Twitter, now it looks like it has more volume (and a better business model) as well. (sigh)

c00p3r 17y ago

Why not? Farmville is both useless and stupid, while Twitter is just useless. People favor stupid time pass.

nailer 17y ago
Quick textbites from people I'm interested in, that I can read at a glance from my pocket whenever I'm bored, are not useless. If you don't understand the appeal of that I don't really think you understand Twitter.

Tawheed 17y ago

I think this comparison shows a fundamental difference between Facebook and Twitter. Twitter is really trying to find a use-case and serve a purpose that in some way adds to the productivity of this planet. Whereas Facebook's goal seems to suck as much of people's time as possible by having them do menial activities, while turning a profit. While the two companies may be in the same "industry" -- they certainly have very different missions (I think), whether they realize it or not.

rwhitman 17y ago

My mom doesn't get Twitter. My mom f-ing LOVES FarmVille. 'Nuff said.

ct 17y ago

Both are fads. Give it another year and we'll be onto another FB app and another social network website that lets you only send 80 characters at a time (it fits into a nice *nix console window!)