Facebook keeps rising in estimated value

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Embedded in your argument is its own refutation. For you the phone, email and letters were phased out, and yet somehow you believe it won't happen to Facebook.

But those things still exist purely because of inertia. You can't come up with a new and better email system, it's too entrenched.

You can't replace Facebook with a new and better product, not unless the internet itself changes dramatically. Facebook is constantly changing too. Remember how it used to be a profile for people to stalk you? Now it's for sharing news, photos, etc.

If you think it's a fad like Myspace you're way off. It's the equivalent of a public forum or town square, with 1/2 billion users. In order to establish a new social network, you'd have to convince all 1/2 billion of those users to switch.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I'm guessing there are a lot of antisocial types on this forum who hate interacting with people they know in real life

I have one, just a lot of the people who want to be friends on facebook are annoying and I really am not their friend in real life. That's what I don't like about it. I don't give a fuck if you and your girlfriend are in love, how does that pertain to everyone of your friends? There's being anti-social then just being egotistical. The only people I don't mind on my friends list are the people like me, who post MAYBE one thing a day and if we do it's generally a link to some piece of news.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I have one, just a lot of the people who want to be friends on facebook are annoying and I really am not their friend in real life. That's what I don't like about it. I don't give a fuck if you and your girlfriend are in love, how does that pertain to everyone of your friends? There's being anti-social then just being egotistical. The only people I don't mind on my friends list are the people like me, who post MAYBE one thing a day and if we do it's generally a link to some piece of news.

Case in point!
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
I have one, just a lot of the people who want to be friends on facebook are annoying and I really am not their friend in real life. That's what I don't like about it. I don't give a fuck if you and your girlfriend are in love, how does that pertain to everyone of your friends? There's being anti-social then just being egotistical. The only people I don't mind on my friends list are the people like me, who post MAYBE one thing a day and if we do it's generally a link to some piece of news.

Wow, that really says a lot about these folks in 2011. o_O

Crazy old homeless folks here line up all day to check their facebook at the library, techie protip: when you have less friends and are a bigger luddite then the guy who wipes his ass with a discarded mickey d's bag -you are slipping.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
But those things still exist purely because of inertia. You can't come up with a new and better email system, it's too entrenched.

You don't need to come up with a new and better email system, you just need to come up with something completely different that is not as flawed and is more user friendly (e.g. Facebook).

You can't replace Facebook with a new and better product, not unless the internet itself changes dramatically.

The Internet probably will change dramatically. But even if it doesn't, that is quite a bold claim that you can't replace Facebook with a new and better product. The possibilities and innovations are practically endless. For instance, who the heck would have thought Twitter (of all things) would have become so popular? The concept initially seems rather silly.

Facebook is constantly changing too. Remember how it used to be a profile for people to stalk you? Now it's for sharing news, photos, etc.

I have no doubt that Facebook is changing constantly, if it didn't it wouldn't survive. But constantly changing doesn't insure survival 100%. A great many other things are constantly changing as well.

If you think it's a fad like Myspace you're way off. It's the equivalent of a public forum or town square, with 1/2 billion users. In order to establish a new social network, you'd have to convince all 1/2 billion of those users to switch.

Facebook got those 1/2 billion users somehow, and by the same process it acquired those users, something else can come along and steal them away.

It's false to say that you would have to convince all 1/2 billion users to switch. In fact, I would say that all it would take is a significant number of relatively popular users to defect to a different site/service. After that, the rest of the sheeple will follow. Why would they do this? Because 'cool' doesn't stay the same thing for very long. I'm sure being on Facebook was very hip and cool in the beginning, but after a certain period of time the cool factor of Facebook will decline. Then, a site will pop up that has some 'wow!' gimmick that allows their users to maximize their narcissism to the degree of Facebook squared. After that, people start jumping ship to get on the hot new thing.

If the investors at Facebook want to keep their users longer term, they should probably think about cutting their most popular users in on the action (e.g. giving them a small % of the ad revenue generated by their Facebook page). On the flipside, if I were to start a social networking site, I would probably pay celebrities to close down their Facebook pages and start up on my site.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Case in point!

I'm sorry I don't update my facebook every time I tie my shoes, I just find it frivolous and honestly a waste of time. So is letting everyone else know you love someone, besides just telling the person themselves.

btw I am very much not a luddite, I am very much love technology. I just don't like technology that promotes and supports stupidity.

edit- would also like to point out I don't consider everyone I know a friend, I don't even consider most of them an acquaintance. My friends are my close friends that I talk to or see most every day anyways outside of facebook. Most of the people whos friend list I am on just added me so they could say they have more "friends".
 
Last edited:

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
I'm guessing there are a lot of antisocial types on this forum who hate interacting with people they know in real life

???

Interact with people by typing things on a computer? If they are your real friends, you can just go meet up with them somewhere. Why is it a requirement to be on facebook to talk to your friends?

Your statement made me do a double-take. Can't tell if you are being serious or not.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
I'm guessing there are a lot of antisocial types on this forum who hate interacting with people they know in real life

I use Facebook to occasionally check on family I don't see on a daily basis and that is pretty much it.

In my opinion, it seems to me many on Facebook are loading up on 'friends' that they wouldn't even recognize at a cocktail party.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I use Facebook to occasionally check on family I don't see on a daily basis and that is pretty much it.

In my opinion, it seems to me many on Facebook are loading up on 'friends' that they wouldn't even recognize at a cocktail party.

^ this
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
It's a great way to keep in touch with relatives instead of having to actually talk to them on the phone or even worse, in person.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
It's a great way to keep in touch with relatives instead of having to actually talk to them on the phone or even worse, in person.

It is literally the only way I know some of my cousins are still alive lol.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
You don't need to come up with a new and better email system, you just need to come up with something completely different that is not as flawed and is more user friendly (e.g. Facebook).



The Internet probably will change dramatically. But even if it doesn't, that is quite a bold claim that you can't replace Facebook with a new and better product. The possibilities and innovations are practically endless. For instance, who the heck would have thought Twitter (of all things) would have become so popular? The concept initially seems rather silly.

Sure, someone can replace Facebook. Someone can also come along and replace Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, or ADM. Do you see that happening? No.

The internet will continue to evolve, but there is no reason to think that Facebook won't continue to evolve, too. In the same way nobody saw Facebook as a threat to Google (which it most clearly is), the potential threats to Facebook are companies we haven't even thought of yet, not another social network.

Facebook's defenses against being replaced are far more developed than MySpace or whatever.

First, they have a tremendous userbase. Facebook users uploaded nearly 750 million phoos on NYE alone. They have over 200 million people who log in daily.

Second, they are making themselves more than just a website to chat with friends, they're becoming a social platform. With their games and apps you can now create programs that easily interact with your friends, feed data back into a centralized placed, and be deployed across platforms.

Third, they are integrating themselves into the rest of the internet. By offering Facebook Connect, Beacon, Instant Personalization, and their forthcoming ad platform, Facebook is slowly getting itself integrated into the biggest websites on the internet and by doing so, they're furthering their users' dependence


I have no doubt that Facebook is changing constantly, if it didn't it wouldn't survive. But constantly changing doesn't insure survival 100%. A great many other things are constantly changing as well.

This statement is a fact with any company, big or small.

Facebook got those 1/2 billion users somehow, and by the same process it acquired those users, something else can come along and steal them away.

Sure they can, but they won't. Facebook came into the heyday of social networking. Most of your buddies didn't have social networking accounts and, if they did, they didn't have 4 or 5 years of information sitting in it. That gives Facebook an advantage. On top of that, one killer feature won't be enough to pull people away. The potential "Facebook Killer" is not a Facebook clone. Just like the Google killer was not / is not another traditional search engine.

It's false to say that you would have to convince all 1/2 billion users to switch. In fact, I would say that all it would take is a significant number of relatively popular users to defect to a different site/service. After that, the rest of the sheeple will follow. Why would they do this? Because 'cool' doesn't stay the same thing for very long. I'm sure being on Facebook was very hip and cool in the beginning, but after a certain period of time the cool factor of Facebook will decline. Then, a site will pop up that has some 'wow!' gimmick that allows their users to maximize their narcissism to the degree of Facebook squared. After that, people start jumping ship to get on the hot new thing.

Really. How are you going to convince anyone to switch to a new social network where none of their friends are, none of their data is, all while they have a perfectly good account at Facebook? This will not happen. Period. What will eventually challenge Facebook is something that only vaguely resembles it and certainly doesn't try and clone it.

If the investors at Facebook want to keep their users longer term, they should probably think about cutting their most popular users in on the action (e.g. giving them a small % of the ad revenue generated by their Facebook page). On the flipside, if I were to start a social networking site, I would probably pay celebrities to close down their Facebook pages and start up on my site.

Why? Facebook has over half a billion users, almost all of whom willingly post data and log in every day. There are zero threats to Facebook right now. None. Why the fuck would you start trying to bribe people to stay at a website that they want to be at already AND when there are no alternatives?

As for your "idea" it wouldn't work. Celebs would continue to post on Facebook and Tweet and nobody would visit your site.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Sure, someone can replace Facebook. Someone can also come along and replace Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, or ADM. Do you see that happening? No.

Actually, Microsoft is being replaced by a number of technologies. It's in a long term slow rate of attrition, which I believe will pick up more steam over the next 5 years and beyond. Microsoft is just a cash cow, and once Windows no longer dominates the desktop OS market, or the desktop OS market goes away entirely, it is game over. Just look at the web and mobile platforms (where a huge chunk of the future of information technology lies): two areas where Microsoft has really bombed.

The internet will continue to evolve, but there is no reason to think that Facebook won't continue to evolve, too. In the same way nobody saw Facebook as a threat to Google (which it most clearly is), the potential threats to Facebook are companies we haven't even thought of yet, not another social network.

I don't disagree. Although, one threat to Facebook could be an advanced decentralized social network where the user's data would be stored almost anywhere and the sharing of that data would occur over a common protocol, but not necessarily on the same server or client as other users. This would radically increase the competitors in the space, and no single monolithic entity could control the majority of user data. This would be much in the same way as email is decentralized, but the objects and interaction that could occur would be far more advanced and varied, having the capability to do everything you could do on Facebook and even far beyond.

Facebook's defenses against being replaced are far more developed than MySpace or whatever.

First, they have a tremendous userbase. Facebook users uploaded nearly 750 million phoos on NYE alone. They have over 200 million people who log in daily.

Second, they are making themselves more than just a website to chat with friends, they're becoming a social platform. With their games and apps you can now create programs that easily interact with your friends, feed data back into a centralized placed, and be deployed across platforms.

Third, they are integrating themselves into the rest of the internet. By offering Facebook Connect, Beacon, Instant Personalization, and their forthcoming ad platform, Facebook is slowly getting itself integrated into the biggest websites on the internet and by doing so, they're furthering their users' dependence

Facebook is huge and everywhere, no doubt. But that could actually eventually become a deficit rather than a plus. I can easily see a scenario where more and more features and demands are made while at the same time cash strapped users are either generating less ad revenue or are just simply tapped out. The marginal returns of each new feature will eventually drop off, while the costs will continue to go up. People want it all free and all right now. As you said, they have to keep innovating to stay on the map, and yet at the same time, what do they do when they simply aren't getting any more revenue out of each user?

Sure they can, but they won't. Facebook came into the heyday of social networking. Most of your buddies didn't have social networking accounts and, if they did, they didn't have 4 or 5 years of information sitting in it. That gives Facebook an advantage. On top of that, one killer feature won't be enough to pull people away. The potential "Facebook Killer" is not a Facebook clone. Just like the Google killer was not / is not another traditional search engine.

A lot of people get tired of something no matter how useful or awesome it is, so they start looking for something else to engage. It is just human nature. I used to be obsessed with Internet gaming and I played everything from Quake to Star Wars Galaxies for hours on end, but I got tired of it after my teen years. I've heard WoW is awesome and is probably many times better than the games I played, but I haven't touched it, and now I very rarely play any games other than an occasional game of online Chess.

You are right, the 'Facebook killer' won't be another Facebook clone, it will just be other activities that aren't Facebook or even social networking in general.

Really. How are you going to convince anyone to switch to a new social network where none of their friends are, none of their data is, all while they have a perfectly good account at Facebook? This will not happen. Period. What will eventually challenge Facebook is something that only vaguely resembles it and certainly doesn't try and clone it.

I don't disagree that it will vaguely resemble Facebook, but as I said before, a lot of people look down on things that the masses are engaged with. They seek out 'cool' things that are 'superior' and more exclusive than what others use. All it takes is for some popular kids to say: "Facebook, omg that is so last year." I think Facebook was probably a lot more hip before mom & dad discovered it. Now that they have, I think a lot of younger people will have an incentive to go somewhere mom & dad are not.

Why? Facebook has over half a billion users, almost all of whom willingly post data and log in every day. There are zero threats to Facebook right now. None. Why the fuck would you start trying to bribe people to stay at a website that they want to be at already AND when there are no alternatives?

Because as I said before, a core contingency of influential defectors could cause a mass defection among others. Seeking out the trend setters and rewarding them for staying put would at least delay such an event from occurring.

As for your "idea" it wouldn't work. Celebs would continue to post on Facebook and Tweet and nobody would visit your site.

Howard Stern was paid hundreds of millions to broadcast his show on Sirius. As far as I know he didn't turn around and secretly broadcast elsewhere as well. 'Loyalty' can be bought in many cases. Also, consider this: the site could reward early adopters by giving them a chance to interact with their favorite celebrity. With much fewer people on the site, they are much more likely to respond to your messages.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,065
12,283
136
Facebook has become a utility. I don't call my friends on the phone, I don't email them, and I sure as hell don't write them letters. Communication only happens on Facebook and AIM (no AIM for most new friends)

Must be a sad life.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
???

Interact with people by typing things on a computer? If they are your real friends, you can just go meet up with them somewhere. Why is it a requirement to be on facebook to talk to your friends?

Your statement made me do a double-take. Can't tell if you are being serious or not.

I don't know about you, but I get home from work and I don't want to drive half an hour to hang out with my friends... I just want to relax, watch tv, play games, and mess around on Facebook. I see my friends, the ones on Maui, on weekends.

It used to be that you'd interact with your friends at the town center, forum, market, etc... Then the automobile drastically changed how towns work and the town center was dead. It took about a hundred years but finally we have a substitute with Facebook.
 
Last edited:

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
2
0
I'm guessing there are a lot of antisocial types on this forum who hate interacting with people they know in real life

I find it hilarious that there's an entire group of people that relate facebook to being actively social and think you're interacting with people.

Talking to people on the phone and physically interacting with them is being social. There's nothing social about sitting on a computer by yourself typing nonsense to try and make your life seem more than it really is.