Posted by Hmmm, a resident of another community, on May 18, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Woodsider, there area lot of people who feel as you do - there was just an article this week in a local paper about it.
For much of the community work that I do, I find Facebook very useful. As the world has changed, & certain professions commensurate w/that, people in those professions find FB useful. In my world, authors, nonprofits, scientists & small business owners use it a lot. But people are flexible & will move toward or shape a trend that works for them. Everyone thought Google+ would be the Next Big Thing, but that hasn't happened. I don't think it adds nothing of value, but it's hard to see the value for those who don't use it or who use it very little or who's concerns about privacy trump their inclination to use it. Jaron Lanier has some good things to say about not using FB, btw.
Meanwhile, as we think on this, Mark's having a big party, not paying his share of taxes & local realtors are rubbing their hands together in glee.
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on May 18, 2012 at 5:33 pm Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
The problem is not that Facebook does or does not add value but that Facebook has no idea how to make money on that value. The shareholders, who have NO control of Facebook, simply have no way of making money on their investment except by selling their stock to someone who is even less aware of this lack of revenue.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on May 19, 2012 at 10:04 am
What Mr. Zuckerberg is doing is not a tax dodge. It is borrowing against an asset (his stock and stock options). It is no different that you borrowing against your house instead of selling it - which would trigger a taxable event.
This is done all the time. Morgan Stanley was the lead underwriter and part of their "pitch" to senior executives and directors is providing wealth management. The centerpiece of those plans generally involves diversification by using the person's stock or stock options as collateral so they can purchase other assets.
Posted by mp downtown, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on May 20, 2012 at 8:39 am
Most users between 13 and 25 log in every single day, according to published stats,
Enough people click on the ads to make FB fairly profitable. There's still room for improvement of course.
Value is marginable to me when most of the status updates are farmville scores, stupid rants, and increasingly ads. I hope they figure it out as teens and adults are fickle!
Personally, what FB has done to inflate the local real estate bubble makes me beyond irritated since we are trying to buy this year, but I can't blame it on them! Let's just say when towns add jobs, they need to also add housing units. Can't have one without the other.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on May 20, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Facebook has a lot of plans to make money. Remember, Google didn't know how to make money either.
900 million people use FB and many spend more time on the site than watching television. Monetizing this asset is the key objective for FB executives. I have no doubt that Facebook will make money and a lot of it. And it won't be by having users click on banner advertising or playing Farmville.
Now whether it is truly worth $100 billion - or even be the first $1 trillion (market cap) company as some have predicted - that, no one can say. I will say that anyone who thinks FB is a fad underestimates their power.
Posted by truth, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on May 21, 2012 at 10:24 pm
POGO, sometimes we can agree.
FB's business modeling is open to criticism and conjecture. The company makes money now. Lots of money. More money than many companies. $4B in 2011. The pricing of the stock at IPO was ambitious and what you see is that it pushed the limits of the current valuation.
This was not a rejection of Facebook or its business/revenue model.
If anyone is gloating about a "failure" of FB, I give you $4B reasons against such a claim.
There are many brilliant people in MP and Atherton and PA who can and have helped companies create new revenue generating models. But Peter is not one of them.
Peter is a classic case of a mildly successful exec from a previous generation who has now claimed to be an expert social media revenue models as well as so many other subjects.
Why he did not create FB is beyond me.
FB is nothing but success. MP did well to negotiation and land them.
Shall I name the thousands of cities who would go crazy for such a partnership?
Posted by Civilized Debate, a member of the Woodside School community, on May 22, 2012 at 9:26 am
Based on the following 2 sentences in your post, nobody will give any respect or weight to your comments. You don't know what you are talking about in those 2 sentences, so why would anyone think you have know anything else you've discussed.
" Peter is a classic case of a mildly successful exec from a previous generation who has now claimed to be an expert social media revenue models as well as so many other subjects."
"Why he did not create FB is beyond me."
"POGO" - same goes for you in addressing a poster:
"What a ridiculous value judgment. I'm sure there are things that you consume or do that others might think is of little value"
You don't know that to be true of that person.
Save your vitriol for your facebook pages.
Thanks to the posters who are mature and civilized.