Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
shader

Facebook IPO thread

Recommended Posts

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

Edited by Slapdash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of online advertising and data collection. I'll explain shortly, but first, my thoughts on the IPO.

I'm actually fairly bullish on FB stock, just not at this price level. 100x earnings and 100 billion dollars? Essentially the stock offering priced out at least 2 or 3 years of growth. Good for those that already had options, but there is a ceiling on what the stock can do for a while. IMO they could triple their revenue/earnings and the stock might not move at all. If it gets down to 23-25 or so I'll be buying as much as I can.

Anyway, the discussion about paying for the service or charging for business pages is silly. Similarly silly are all of the recent articles about people not seeing any return from FB ads. This should come as a surprise to no one - for ads to work, the person viewing them has to be complicit in receiving the message. Ads work on Google because when people go to Google they are almost always LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. Google's ad platform monetizes them finding what they need. Facebook does no such thing. Visitors to FB do not go to FB to shop, they go to stalk ex-girlfriends and post pictures of their pets or whatever.

I don't think anyone (including the FB people) think that their on-site ad platform is ever going to generate much revenue. But the point of the on-site ad platform may not be to generate revenue but rather to dial in the ad platform itself. The FB-based ad platform is a testbed/sandbox for FB to match ads to people and test algorithms and such....

...which leads to how FB is going to make a zillion dollars.

Recently, FB changed their ToS to allow FB to track you when you are not on the FB site. THis means that when you go to another browser window or a different site, FB has the ability to follow you. So everywhere you go on the internet, FB is able to go with you and the treasure trove of data they have is with them. Which is why they will be launching an AdWords/AdSense competitor in the not too distant future. They don't care about making money off of you while you're on FB (outside of teenagers buying virtual goods in games). Rather, they give you the FB platform to use for FREE so they can collect scores of information about you. Eventually they will have a platform for publishers that delivers on site revenue to publishers like Google does, only the ads they serve will have higher conversion rates because they are REALLY atuned to you and your likes and dislikes, more so than Google.

The challenge FB faces is time of engagement on the site, not so you might click on an ad but so they have time to collect more info about you. They need "horizontal" engagement....right now that average FB user is on the site less than 4 minutes a day IIRC. The longer you are on FB, the longer your friends are on, the more data they can collect about what ads to serve you on their new ad platform. By creating the app store a couple weeks ago, they are opening the door up for the same creative types that made the Apple app store so successful to come in and make the FB ecostystem full of new games and business services and tools and other stuff.....all things intended to make you come to facebook more often so they can collect more data and thus make more money when you leave FB.

People talk about their challenge in mobile being about monetizing a mobile site, which is silly. They don't need to run ads on a FB app...they just need to make it full featured enough that you interact with it the same way you interact with FB on the desktop. They bought Instragram for this reason. They will continue buying properties that people engage with. Not so they can run ads on those properties, but so they can get more info about you.

The stock will slowly slide for the next 6-18 months. And when the ad platform is announced the stock will double in a week. Black dot it, put it ink.

Interesting post but I think you're WAY off on the time spent of Facebook:

405 / 31 = 13 minutes per day. My link

According to comScore, users spent an average of only three minutes on Google+ last month, compared to 405 minutes on Facebook and 89 minutes on hot newcomer Pinterest.

Edited by goonsquad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

If I use Firefox only for logging into Facebook, and use Chrome to surf everything else, does that super cookie span multiple browsers?

The wikipedia article sounds like it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of online advertising and data collection. I'll explain shortly, but first, my thoughts on the IPO.

I'm actually fairly bullish on FB stock, just not at this price level. 100x earnings and 100 billion dollars? Essentially the stock offering priced out at least 2 or 3 years of growth. Good for those that already had options, but there is a ceiling on what the stock can do for a while. IMO they could triple their revenue/earnings and the stock might not move at all. If it gets down to 23-25 or so I'll be buying as much as I can.

Anyway, the discussion about paying for the service or charging for business pages is silly. Similarly silly are all of the recent articles about people not seeing any return from FB ads. This should come as a surprise to no one - for ads to work, the person viewing them has to be complicit in receiving the message. Ads work on Google because when people go to Google they are almost always LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. Google's ad platform monetizes them finding what they need. Facebook does no such thing. Visitors to FB do not go to FB to shop, they go to stalk ex-girlfriends and post pictures of their pets or whatever.

I don't think anyone (including the FB people) think that their on-site ad platform is ever going to generate much revenue. But the point of the on-site ad platform may not be to generate revenue but rather to dial in the ad platform itself. The FB-based ad platform is a testbed/sandbox for FB to match ads to people and test algorithms and such....

...which leads to how FB is going to make a zillion dollars.

Recently, FB changed their ToS to allow FB to track you when you are not on the FB site. THis means that when you go to another browser window or a different site, FB has the ability to follow you. So everywhere you go on the internet, FB is able to go with you and the treasure trove of data they have is with them. Which is why they will be launching an AdWords/AdSense competitor in the not too distant future. They don't care about making money off of you while you're on FB (outside of teenagers buying virtual goods in games). Rather, they give you the FB platform to use for FREE so they can collect scores of information about you. Eventually they will have a platform for publishers that delivers on site revenue to publishers like Google does, only the ads they serve will have higher conversion rates because they are REALLY atuned to you and your likes and dislikes, more so than Google.

The challenge FB faces is time of engagement on the site, not so you might click on an ad but so they have time to collect more info about you. They need "horizontal" engagement....right now that average FB user is on the site less than 4 minutes a day IIRC. The longer you are on FB, the longer your friends are on, the more data they can collect about what ads to serve you on their new ad platform. By creating the app store a couple weeks ago, they are opening the door up for the same creative types that made the Apple app store so successful to come in and make the FB ecostystem full of new games and business services and tools and other stuff.....all things intended to make you come to facebook more often so they can collect more data and thus make more money when you leave FB.

People talk about their challenge in mobile being about monetizing a mobile site, which is silly. They don't need to run ads on a FB app...they just need to make it full featured enough that you interact with it the same way you interact with FB on the desktop. They bought Instragram for this reason. They will continue buying properties that people engage with. Not so they can run ads on those properties, but so they can get more info about you.

The stock will slowly slide for the next 6-18 months. And when the ad platform is announced the stock will double in a week. Black dot it, put it ink.

Interesting post but I think you're WAY off on the time spent of Facebook:

405 / 31 = 13 minutes per day. My link

According to comScore, users spent an average of only three minutes on Google+ last month, compared to 405 minutes on Facebook and 89 minutes on hot newcomer Pinterest.

Interesting, but the point remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of online advertising and data collection. I'll explain shortly, but first, my thoughts on the IPO.I'm actually fairly bullish on FB stock, just not at this price level. 100x earnings and 100 billion dollars? Essentially the stock offering priced out at least 2 or 3 years of growth. Good for those that already had options, but there is a ceiling on what the stock can do for a while. IMO they could triple their revenue/earnings and the stock might not move at all. If it gets down to 23-25 or so I'll be buying as much as I can. Anyway, the discussion about paying for the service or charging for business pages is silly. Similarly silly are all of the recent articles about people not seeing any return from FB ads. This should come as a surprise to no one - for ads to work, the person viewing them has to be complicit in receiving the message. Ads work on Google because when people go to Google they are almost always LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. Google's ad platform monetizes them finding what they need. Facebook does no such thing. Visitors to FB do not go to FB to shop, they go to stalk ex-girlfriends and post pictures of their pets or whatever.I don't think anyone (including the FB people) think that their on-site ad platform is ever going to generate much revenue. But the point of the on-site ad platform may not be to generate revenue but rather to dial in the ad platform itself. The FB-based ad platform is a testbed/sandbox for FB to match ads to people and test algorithms and such.......which leads to how FB is going to make a zillion dollars.Recently, FB changed their ToS to allow FB to track you when you are not on the FB site. THis means that when you go to another browser window or a different site, FB has the ability to follow you. So everywhere you go on the internet, FB is able to go with you and the treasure trove of data they have is with them. Which is why they will be launching an AdWords/AdSense competitor in the not too distant future. They don't care about making money off of you while you're on FB (outside of teenagers buying virtual goods in games). Rather, they give you the FB platform to use for FREE so they can collect scores of information about you. Eventually they will have a platform for publishers that delivers on site revenue to publishers like Google does, only the ads they serve will have higher conversion rates because they are REALLY atuned to you and your likes and dislikes, more so than Google. The challenge FB faces is time of engagement on the site, not so you might click on an ad but so they have time to collect more info about you. They need "horizontal" engagement....right now that average FB user is on the site less than 4 minutes a day IIRC. The longer you are on FB, the longer your friends are on, the more data they can collect about what ads to serve you on their new ad platform. By creating the app store a couple weeks ago, they are opening the door up for the same creative types that made the Apple app store so successful to come in and make the FB ecostystem full of new games and business services and tools and other stuff.....all things intended to make you come to facebook more often so they can collect more data and thus make more money when you leave FB.People talk about their challenge in mobile being about monetizing a mobile site, which is silly. They don't need to run ads on a FB app...they just need to make it full featured enough that you interact with it the same way you interact with FB on the desktop. They bought Instragram for this reason. They will continue buying properties that people engage with. Not so they can run ads on those properties, but so they can get more info about you. The stock will slowly slide for the next 6-18 months. And when the ad platform is announced the stock will double in a week. Black dot it, put it ink.

Actually 25x earnings. The $1B figure was their profit FWIW. I have an order in for 100 shares at $17 and will look at put options, when they become available, until then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

If I use Firefox only for logging into Facebook, and use Chrome to surf everything else, does that super cookie span multiple browsers?

The wikipedia article sounds like it does.

I'm not sure, I think so. There are add-ons for Firefox that will delete these off of your hard drive though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of online advertising and data collection. I'll explain shortly, but first, my thoughts on the IPO.I'm actually fairly bullish on FB stock, just not at this price level. 100x earnings and 100 billion dollars? Essentially the stock offering priced out at least 2 or 3 years of growth. Good for those that already had options, but there is a ceiling on what the stock can do for a while. IMO they could triple their revenue/earnings and the stock might not move at all. If it gets down to 23-25 or so I'll be buying as much as I can. Anyway, the discussion about paying for the service or charging for business pages is silly. Similarly silly are all of the recent articles about people not seeing any return from FB ads. This should come as a surprise to no one - for ads to work, the person viewing them has to be complicit in receiving the message. Ads work on Google because when people go to Google they are almost always LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. Google's ad platform monetizes them finding what they need. Facebook does no such thing. Visitors to FB do not go to FB to shop, they go to stalk ex-girlfriends and post pictures of their pets or whatever.I don't think anyone (including the FB people) think that their on-site ad platform is ever going to generate much revenue. But the point of the on-site ad platform may not be to generate revenue but rather to dial in the ad platform itself. The FB-based ad platform is a testbed/sandbox for FB to match ads to people and test algorithms and such.......which leads to how FB is going to make a zillion dollars.Recently, FB changed their ToS to allow FB to track you when you are not on the FB site. THis means that when you go to another browser window or a different site, FB has the ability to follow you. So everywhere you go on the internet, FB is able to go with you and the treasure trove of data they have is with them. Which is why they will be launching an AdWords/AdSense competitor in the not too distant future. They don't care about making money off of you while you're on FB (outside of teenagers buying virtual goods in games). Rather, they give you the FB platform to use for FREE so they can collect scores of information about you. Eventually they will have a platform for publishers that delivers on site revenue to publishers like Google does, only the ads they serve will have higher conversion rates because they are REALLY atuned to you and your likes and dislikes, more so than Google. The challenge FB faces is time of engagement on the site, not so you might click on an ad but so they have time to collect more info about you. They need "horizontal" engagement....right now that average FB user is on the site less than 4 minutes a day IIRC. The longer you are on FB, the longer your friends are on, the more data they can collect about what ads to serve you on their new ad platform. By creating the app store a couple weeks ago, they are opening the door up for the same creative types that made the Apple app store so successful to come in and make the FB ecostystem full of new games and business services and tools and other stuff.....all things intended to make you come to facebook more often so they can collect more data and thus make more money when you leave FB.People talk about their challenge in mobile being about monetizing a mobile site, which is silly. They don't need to run ads on a FB app...they just need to make it full featured enough that you interact with it the same way you interact with FB on the desktop. They bought Instragram for this reason. They will continue buying properties that people engage with. Not so they can run ads on those properties, but so they can get more info about you. The stock will slowly slide for the next 6-18 months. And when the ad platform is announced the stock will double in a week. Black dot it, put it ink.

Actually 25x earnings. The $1B figure was their profit FWIW. I have an order in for 100 shares at $17 and will look at put options, when they become available, until then.
Earnings=profit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

If I use Firefox only for logging into Facebook, and use Chrome to surf everything else, does that super cookie span multiple browsers?

The wikipedia article sounds like it does.

I'm not sure, I think so. There are add-ons for Firefox that will delete these off of your hard drive though.
I appreciate the tip. I didn't know these extensions existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

If I use Firefox only for logging into Facebook, and use Chrome to surf everything else, does that super cookie span multiple browsers?

The wikipedia article sounds like it does.

I'm not sure, I think so. There are add-ons for Firefox that will delete these off of your hard drive though.
I appreciate the tip. I didn't know these extensions existed.
Better Privacy and Ghostery are good ones for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visitors to FB do not go to FB to shop, they go to stalk ex-girlfriends and post pictures of their pets or whatever....which leads to how FB is going to make a zillion dollars.

:goodposting:Step 1: For $10/yr, Facebook should offer a Premium Membership. The Premium Membership will allow Premium Members to view how many times each non-Premium Member has viewed that Premium Member's page within the last week, month, or year.Step 2: $$$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:goodposting: Abraham. Thanks for your thoughts, I feel like the "Facebook Ad-sense" has to be the ultimate goal. I was thinking that low 20s would probably be a good place to buy in, if I was going to. I do a lot of work with businesses and Facebook pages, so I feel like I have a decent sense how the platform is really working, as opposed to someone who might just go there to post pictures or keep up with friends. Also have some of the same indicators that toadstool referred to, in that I see businesses flocking to Facebook right now, and would likely have a good sense if they started to back off. Every single pitch we go on now involves some sort of social, and Facebook is the 800lb gorilla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have only begun to tap the potential for businesses. Facebook could buy and integrate yelp very easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this discussion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of online advertising and data collection. I'll explain shortly, but first, my thoughts on the IPO.

I'm actually fairly bullish on FB stock, just not at this price level. 100x earnings and 100 billion dollars? Essentially the stock offering priced out at least 2 or 3 years of growth. Good for those that already had options, but there is a ceiling on what the stock can do for a while. IMO they could triple their revenue/earnings and the stock might not move at all. If it gets down to 23-25 or so I'll be buying as much as I can.

Anyway, the discussion about paying for the service or charging for business pages is silly. Similarly silly are all of the recent articles about people not seeing any return from FB ads. This should come as a surprise to no one - for ads to work, the person viewing them has to be complicit in receiving the message. Ads work on Google because when people go to Google they are almost always LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. Google's ad platform monetizes them finding what they need. Facebook does no such thing. Visitors to FB do not go to FB to shop, they go to stalk ex-girlfriends and post pictures of their pets or whatever.

I don't think anyone (including the FB people) think that their on-site ad platform is ever going to generate much revenue. But the point of the on-site ad platform may not be to generate revenue but rather to dial in the ad platform itself. The FB-based ad platform is a testbed/sandbox for FB to match ads to people and test algorithms and such....

...which leads to how FB is going to make a zillion dollars.

Recently, FB changed their ToS to allow FB to track you when you are not on the FB site. THis means that when you go to another browser window or a different site, FB has the ability to follow you. So everywhere you go on the internet, FB is able to go with you and the treasure trove of data they have is with them. Which is why they will be launching an AdWords/AdSense competitor in the not too distant future. They don't care about making money off of you while you're on FB (outside of teenagers buying virtual goods in games). Rather, they give you the FB platform to use for FREE so they can collect scores of information about you. Eventually they will have a platform for publishers that delivers on site revenue to publishers like Google does, only the ads they serve will have higher conversion rates because they are REALLY atuned to you and your likes and dislikes, more so than Google.

The challenge FB faces is time of engagement on the site, not so you might click on an ad but so they have time to collect more info about you. They need "horizontal" engagement....right now that average FB user is on the site less than 4 minutes a day IIRC. The longer you are on FB, the longer your friends are on, the more data they can collect about what ads to serve you on their new ad platform. By creating the app store a couple weeks ago, they are opening the door up for the same creative types that made the Apple app store so successful to come in and make the FB ecostystem full of new games and business services and tools and other stuff.....all things intended to make you come to facebook more often so they can collect more data and thus make more money when you leave FB.

People talk about their challenge in mobile being about monetizing a mobile site, which is silly. They don't need to run ads on a FB app...they just need to make it full featured enough that you interact with it the same way you interact with FB on the desktop. They bought Instragram for this reason. They will continue buying properties that people engage with. Not so they can run ads on those properties, but so they can get more info about you.

The stock will slowly slide for the next 6-18 months. And when the ad platform is announced the stock will double in a week. Black dot it, put it ink.

Interesting post but I think you're WAY off on the time spent of Facebook:

405 / 31 = 13 minutes per day. My link

According to comScore, users spent an average of only three minutes on Google+ last month, compared to 405 minutes on Facebook and 89 minutes on hot newcomer Pinterest.

I see the problem. Abe's numbers don't include my wife's facebook usage, while goon's does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what toadstool is referring to is the fact that businesses are going onto facebook to do advertising. They are using facebook to drive people to their "page".

What toadstool doesn't realize is that the reason people do this is because it's FREE! Anyone can create a facebook page and update it continuously!

Facebook's problem is that they are dependent on advertising. The problem is that they are a social media site, and their "hip factor" is entirely dependent on the whims of young people.

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

The reason Google remains dominant is because they have an actual product. The best search engine bar none.

The only way Facebook survives is to continue to remain the unequivocal leader in social media from now on. I just don't see how that happens.

As such, I wouldn't be caught dead holding this stock for very long.

I do... They just buy every other one that pops up. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys like catching falling knives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

If I use Firefox only for logging into Facebook, and use Chrome to surf everything else, does that super cookie span multiple browsers?

The wikipedia article sounds like it does.

I'm not sure, I think so. There are add-ons for Firefox that will delete these off of your hard drive though.
I appreciate the tip. I didn't know these extensions existed.
Um where can I get this remover of super cookies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so even if I don't have FB open, it is tracking my net activity?

Like, ALL of my activity? :shock: Christ, FB is like my ex-wife.

Yes, they have been doing this for some time. Facebook and other sites install something called a "super cookie" (also called Locally Shared Object or Flash Cookie) on your machine which tracks your activity on any sites with a Facebook button, like this site.

Your privacy and anonymity is an illusion, my friend.

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/08/11/super-cookies-lurk-in-your-browser/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_shared_object

If I use Firefox only for logging into Facebook, and use Chrome to surf everything else, does that super cookie span multiple browsers?

The wikipedia article sounds like it does.

I'm not sure, I think so. There are add-ons for Firefox that will delete these off of your hard drive though.
I appreciate the tip. I didn't know these extensions existed.
Um where can I get this remover of super cookies?
Better Privacy add on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many people are unfriending Facebook right about now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the volumes dropping because of nasdaq issues, or are they really just dropping because everyone is calming down?

Apparently yesterday Morgan had orders to trade large volumes at 33 for support and 35 to rally. When it got stuck in the range the volume dried up. There will be no support today from anyone except fanboys and dreamers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the volumes dropping because of nasdaq issues, or are they really just dropping because everyone is calming down?

Apparently yesterday Morgan had orders to trade large volumes at 33 for support and 35 to rally. When it got stuck in the range the volume dried up.

There will be no support today from anyone except fanboys and dreamers.

Now there are Facebook fanboys? Oh come on. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.
I agree that Facebook made was a huge upgrade over MySpace, but who is to say that Google+ won't overtake Facebook at some point in the future? And if not Google, maybe another social media website will spring up that will be next hot thing and it'll catch like wildfire.IMO, Facebook is just way too much of a risk. It's such a "trendy" stock that could go out of favor in a heartbeat. I'd rather own a company that makes a product or provides a service that really doesn't show much a chance of going away anytime soon (not that Facebook will go way soon, but you get the point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.
I agree that Facebook made was a huge upgrade over MySpace, but who is to say that Google+ won't overtake Facebook at some point in the future? And if not Google, maybe another social media website will spring up that will be next hot thing and it'll catch like wildfire.IMO, Facebook is just way too much of a risk. It's such a "trendy" stock that could go out of favor in a heartbeat. I'd rather own a company that makes a product or provides a service that really doesn't show much a chance of going away anytime soon (not that Facebook will go way soon, but you get the point).
I will bet the current value of Facebook that Google+ will never overtake Facebook. What a complete disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.
I agree that Facebook made was a huge upgrade over MySpace, but who is to say that Google+ won't overtake Facebook at some point in the future? And if not Google, maybe another social media website will spring up that will be next hot thing and it'll catch like wildfire.IMO, Facebook is just way too much of a risk. It's such a "trendy" stock that could go out of favor in a heartbeat. I'd rather own a company that makes a product or provides a service that really doesn't show much a chance of going away anytime soon (not that Facebook will go way soon, but you get the point).
I will bet the current value of Facebook that Google+ will never overtake Facebook. What a complete disaster.
And I bet that AOL will always be my e-mail provider.....oh wait..... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.
Well you are probably right in that people won't jump ship from Facebook for no reason. But what they will do is jump to a better option.What that option is? I don't know. If I knew, I'd start the site and try to net a couple billion dollars. But I feel pretty confident that it will exist, and when it does, people will flock to is when it becomes the "new cool" site, as opposed to the "old boring" site.Maybe it's a site that allows more customization of pages, aka Myspace, but has great functionality like facebook.I think there is a huge opportunity for an "all-in-one" site that is kind of a mix of Amazon, Facebook and Paypal.If Facebook goes that route and becomes a true one-stop shop, then the sky is the limit. As down as I am on Facebook, I would become really bullish, really fast if they made a few changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.
I agree that Facebook made was a huge upgrade over MySpace, but who is to say that Google+ won't overtake Facebook at some point in the future? And if not Google, maybe another social media website will spring up that will be next hot thing and it'll catch like wildfire.IMO, Facebook is just way too much of a risk. It's such a "trendy" stock that could go out of favor in a heartbeat. I'd rather own a company that makes a product or provides a service that really doesn't show much a chance of going away anytime soon (not that Facebook will go way soon, but you get the point).
I will bet the current value of Facebook that Google+ will never overtake Facebook. What a complete disaster.
And I bet that AOL will always be my e-mail provider.....oh wait..... :mellow:
Hardly comparable. AOL's competitors developed their products, introduced them, and trounced AOL. AOL also had no plans for how to deal with broadband and local ISPs. They still tried making people use their software when it was completely unnecessary. Google+ has been around for a year and absolutely failed in its efforts to out-Facebook Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's a site that allows more customization of pages, aka Myspace, but has great functionality like facebook.

Facebook has going for it what Google always had: competent coding and stylistic sense. It will be very hard for someone to come along and make a faster, prettier, more functional social networking site because Facebook has a huge head start along with the competence to copy (or the money to buy) upstarts with one or two good ideas.There's no comparison to MySpace, which lacked pretty much any redeeming qualities other than becoming popular first.(And Facebook is already more customizable than MySpace ever was, if you want to spend the effort. If you don't want to do any coding yourself, you can use a third-party plug-in like Social Fixer with little effort.)I agree with the spirit of your point, however. Technology moves too fast to have a good idea of what social networking (or its business model) will look like ten years from now. I doubt Mark Zuckerberg has much of a clear idea, although his guess is probably far better than any of ours. So Facebook as an investment is necessarily risky. It's trading at a huge multiple of realistically foreseeable earnings, and there's no guarantee that it won't go the way of MySpace (although it would be for far different reasons — Yahoo! is probably the better potential comparison). You can't say that about Coca-Cola, for example.On the other hand, there's no doubting that Facebook's upside potential is also huge. Almost everyone has a Facebook account, and there's no telling what people will be using it for ten years from now (if it still exists). It could be the way people pay for everything instead of MasterCard. It could the primary way employers and employees are matched, or service-industry businesses and clients. It could be the way people consume all their media content, trouncing YouTube and TimeWarner. The possibilities are nearly limitless. You can't say that about Coca-Cola, either.Facebook is a boom-or-bust pick. It's Denarius Moore. (Too bad it's currently priced more like Miles Austin.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it takes is one freaking movie where some "dreamy actor" slams facebook as "old news", and the lemmings (as FavreCo so eloquently named them) will jump ship and leave the company in a pile of dust. It will be exactly what happened to MySpace.

IMO, I think the allure of Facebook is a lot stronger than you realize. I don't think that a material number of people will jump ship if, say, Robert Pattinson bashes Facebook in an interiew.Myspace tanked because the product sucked (if we're being honest) and a better option came along. Myspace's load times were horrible, search function barely worked, and the customizability of the pages was an absolute disaster, IMO. It was unreadable and unmanageable. Facebook took the same idea and made it remarkably better.That doesn't solve the problem of "how are they going to make money?" of course, but I think Facebook is a lot more entrenched in the public persona than you do, I guess.
I agree that Facebook made was a huge upgrade over MySpace, but who is to say that Google+ won't overtake Facebook at some point in the future? And if not Google, maybe another social media website will spring up that will be next hot thing and it'll catch like wildfire.IMO, Facebook is just way too much of a risk. It's such a "trendy" stock that could go out of favor in a heartbeat. I'd rather own a company that makes a product or provides a service that really doesn't show much a chance of going away anytime soon (not that Facebook will go way soon, but you get the point).
Sure, and I wasn't commenting on the stock, which I would not be comfortable buying at this time. My only point was that Facebook's stranglehold on the market is a lot stronger than Shader seemed to indicate in his post. He seemed to imply that people are on Facebook because it's "cool", and an attack on its coolness (such as a diss from a pop icon) would severely damage its user base. I really don't think that's true. When I first joined Facebook in fall 2004 (freshman in college at the time at one of the first wave of universities to have access to Facebook), it certainly was the "cool" thing to do. The coolness-factor went out the window when my parents and grandparents joined Facebook a few years later :mellow: . There is definitely no way to predict where we are in the future, whether Google+ overtakes it, whether something else overtakes it, etc.; there are always vulnerabilities in the internet-world. I just don't think it's as instantly-vulnerable as he made it seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dipped my toe into Facebook buying 200 shares at 31.09

interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having 700M customers is worth a ton. I expect there will soon be a "Premium" Facebook and although most say they won't upgrade to it, enough will. And as the company starts leveraging their power base look for them to be a big player in the games world too (like Zynga). The creation of the Timeline was sheer genius. It will be the reason no one topples Facebook anytime soon. Once people have years worth of histories, they will not want to leave.

The pricing plan I would go for:

$1/month gives you these benefits:

- Unlimited timeline (else posts are scrubbed older than 3 years)

- ability to see who has checked in on you and how often (stalker alert)

- Extra features like game tokens, software integration, etc

- Businesses must have premium model

then once they have a huge subscription model, simply raise the price to $1.99 a month or $16 a year, etc. :boatloads:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook a boom-or-bust pick. It's Denarius Moore. (Too bad it's currently priced more like Miles Austin.)

Perfect analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having 700M customers is worth a ton. I expect there will soon be a "Premium" Facebook and although most say they won't upgrade to it, enough will. And as the company starts leveraging their power base look for them to be a big player in the games world too (like Zynga). The creation of the Timeline was sheer genius. It will be the reason no one topples Facebook anytime soon. Once people have years worth of histories, they will not want to leave.The pricing plan I would go for:$1/month gives you these benefits:- Unlimited timeline (else posts are scrubbed older than 3 years)- ability to see who has checked in on you and how often (stalker alert)- Extra features like game tokens, software integration, etc- Businesses must have premium modelthen once they have a huge subscription model, simply raise the price to $1.99 a month or $16 a year, etc. :boatloads:

I disagree with the limited timeline, the longer the timeline the more you are invested and less likely to bail for the next best thing. Charging for the timeline would be very short sited and that doesn't seem like what fb has been about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no comparison to MySpace, which lacked pretty much any redeeming qualities other than becoming popular first.

Incidentally, when I think about what could have been . . .

I'm sure there are a bunch of stories like this, but I had a client that debuted a sort-of social networking site in 1999. MySpace didn't launch until 2003.

My client was a punk rock band, made up of computer programmers, called Dork. They started a site called Dork.com. They gave anyone who signed up a free email address. (There was something unusual about that at the time — maybe the fact that it could be used with POP3 servers, unlike other free email services like Yahoo! or Hotmail back then.) More importantly, it gave everyone a personalized a wall space (though it wasn't called that). The wall space was a form of free webhosting to make personal web pages, like GeoCities, except that people didn't have carte blanche to make whatever kind of page they wanted. The user had to use a built-in HTML editor, and the output was in a certain format such that everybody's page had a spot for other users to drop by and leave messages and stuff (similar to the MySpace wall). I didn't see the point of communicating that way instead of by email, but obviously the idea has caught on quite well since then. I wish I had a better recollection of what people were supposed to use the site for. (I remember that there was a music-sharing component: bands could upload and share their own songs.) As far as I remember, there was no way to search for other members. So I had dork.com/maurile and somebody else might have had dork.com/shuke, but unless we already knew each other's usernames (and therefore URL's), I don't think there was an easy way to find each other. That was, in hindsight, probably a huge whiff.

The site actually gained users for a while at a rate that caused them to think it could be a Really Big Thing. If only they knew... They had enough (self-)funding to support the server costs associated decent growth for a while. And they were getting ad revenues, though I'm not sure how much. I'm not sure exactly why it died. (Maybe it was the presence of ads, which Mark Zuckerberg correctly realized weren't cool.) Two of the guys went on to make many millions of dollars doing other things anyway, but the guy who did most of the programming...I'm not sure what happened to him.

The whole thing, this precursor to social networking, was pretty unique at the time. It makes me think about how much potential it had if only things had worked out differently. (And as far as I remember, I actually took a small equity stake instead of cash to do their start-up, although I could be wrong about that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuckerberg is a rich man but is he setting an individual record for most $ ever lost on paper?

in what.. a short time frame?what if it went to 40 tomorrow? (it won't, but still) paper losses are kind of silly.especially since he never had the money before.I doubt he's going to be too bummed about going from 16 to even 10 billion... it's still several billion more than he could ever spend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuckerberg is a rich man but is he setting an individual record for most $ ever lost on paper?

in what.. a short time frame?what if it went to 40 tomorrow? (it won't, but still) paper losses are kind of silly.especially since he never had the money before.I doubt he's going to be too bummed about going from 16 to even 10 billion... it's still several billion more than he could ever spend
Ever. It's already at like $5 billion evaporated so far and the end may not be near yet. This turd is toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuckerberg is a rich man but is he setting an individual record for most $ ever lost on paper?

in what.. a short time frame?what if it went to 40 tomorrow? (it won't, but still) paper losses are kind of silly.especially since he never had the money before.I doubt he's going to be too bummed about going from 16 to even 10 billion... it's still several billion more than he could ever spend
Ever. It's already at like $5 billion evaporated so far and the end may not be near yet. This turd is toxic.
if it erodes down to a buck a share and he still has several million dollars I think he'll be able to make it.Guy could probably get a job coding at microsoft for a few hundred G's a year too.I suspect he'll remain solvent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already rarely post anything there other than pics a little bit. Main reason being I think of something to say then think about will anybody get PO'd about it or think it's TMI, etc. They start going to a deal where anyone can see if I even looked at their page it might just be time for me to quit it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dipped my toe into Facebook buying 200 shares at 31.09<br>

#lightmoneyonfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Morgan Stanley will be getting into more hot water....analyst lowered earnings forecast which was shared with a few select individual and institutional customers and yet the underwriting arm increased the share price of the offering and the Smith Barney unit flooded retail investors with shares. Hard to say what should happen in the blackout prior to the IPO here - but some people are questioning MS quite a bit today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuckerberg is a rich man but is he setting an individual record for most $ ever lost on paper?

At it's highest (1999) Microsoft had a market cap of $618.9 billion ($846 billion adjusting for inflation to 2012). Today it's sitting at a market cap of $250 billion. I guarantee some Microsoft big dogs have "lost" more than $5 billion over that time frame. Gates owned nearly 10% of the shares at one time, I know he is giving a sizable portion of his wealth away but I would bet his "paper loses" over this time beat out Zuckerberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zuckerberg is a rich man but is he setting an individual record for most $ ever lost on paper?

in what.. a short time frame?what if it went to 40 tomorrow? (it won't, but still) paper losses are kind of silly.especially since he never had the money before.I doubt he's going to be too bummed about going from 16 to even 10 billion... it's still several billion more than he could ever spend
Ever. It's already at like $5 billion evaporated so far and the end may not be near yet. This turd is toxic.
if it erodes down to a buck a share and he still has several million dollars I think he'll be able to make it.Guy could probably get a job coding at microsoft for a few hundred G's a year too.I suspect he'll remain solvent
I think Otis' sportsbook account had more volatility than Zuckerburg's worth. YWIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.