It looks to me like people are scrambling to justify Facebook’s massive estimated value. It may turn out being a great dud, an overestimated and overvalued entity – not unlike the dot com companies that came years before. Quite frankly, I’m guessing that Google is overvalued now too – really America’s 5th largest company? This is not proportionate to its profits. Yes the value this company has in terms of data mining and overall influence is substantial. There’s something almost hypnotic and completely illogical about how they swooped out of nowhere and dominated the search engine market, but nevertheless – I think all it takes is one search engine with a better design to come along and outdo them. I’m surprised no one sees that probably a large portion of Google’s real success was in its design.
Those results just physically look good. The page still is perfectly clean despite its enormous size. I think a lot of is simplicity branding, which is also what Apple has done and Facebook. My point with Facebook is that social networking, while an intriguing future to how people will use the internet, is more about a change in technology rather than a real company with assets that will survive the long haul.
Whether its Google’s OpenSocial or not, I do think social networking apps will be more and more standardized and open sourced.
I think the core flaw with Facebook is the reason people use it – is to network with friends. Its popularity grew due to a lack of ad congestion, and I think users will flock to newer services when the site becomes congested with ads – which it will have to do in order to become profitable, especially with this much invested in it now.
I almost wonder if Microsoft purposely put in this much money to sort of force it to stay independent and collapse upon itself. You know? Why in the world would Microsoft want a company like this to gain that much value overnight and become more competition essentially? 1% isn’t a substantial enough amount of ownership to really make off well on the loss of opportunities it would be snagging otherwise.
Whatever happens, I bet the YouTube guys are kind of wishing they decided to wing it and stay independent, or tried to orchestrate a merger with Facebook or something like that instead of just getting gobbled up by Google.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 19th, 2007 at 4:01 am and is filed under Facebook Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Facebook a dud?
It looks to me like people are scrambling to justify Facebook’s massive estimated value. It may turn out being a great dud, an overestimated and overvalued entity – not unlike the dot com companies that came years before. Quite frankly, I’m guessing that Google is overvalued now too – really America’s 5th largest company? This is not proportionate to its profits. Yes the value this company has in terms of data mining and overall influence is substantial. There’s something almost hypnotic and completely illogical about how they swooped out of nowhere and dominated the search engine market, but nevertheless – I think all it takes is one search engine with a better design to come along and outdo them. I’m surprised no one sees that probably a large portion of Google’s real success was in its design.
Those results just physically look good. The page still is perfectly clean despite its enormous size. I think a lot of is simplicity branding, which is also what Apple has done and Facebook. My point with Facebook is that social networking, while an intriguing future to how people will use the internet, is more about a change in technology rather than a real company with assets that will survive the long haul.
Whether its Google’s OpenSocial or not, I do think social networking apps will be more and more standardized and open sourced.
I think the core flaw with Facebook is the reason people use it – is to network with friends. Its popularity grew due to a lack of ad congestion, and I think users will flock to newer services when the site becomes congested with ads – which it will have to do in order to become profitable, especially with this much invested in it now.
I almost wonder if Microsoft purposely put in this much money to sort of force it to stay independent and collapse upon itself. You know? Why in the world would Microsoft want a company like this to gain that much value overnight and become more competition essentially? 1% isn’t a substantial enough amount of ownership to really make off well on the loss of opportunities it would be snagging otherwise.
Whatever happens, I bet the YouTube guys are kind of wishing they decided to wing it and stay independent, or tried to orchestrate a merger with Facebook or something like that instead of just getting gobbled up by Google.
Like this:
This entry was posted on Monday, November 19th, 2007 at 4:01 am and is filed under Facebook Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.