Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The sad truth about Facebook

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#121

Post by wtn »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #56

This article is full of it, but for more reasons than have been articulated so far. One problem is that the article mistakes light for heat. Just because they get less press than Facebook doesn't mean that old-school high-tech engineering startups don't exist. Facebook et al are focused like a laser on getting their names out. That is what social networking is : word-of-mouth viral publicity. Whereas most hardware st…

You think the government is trying to depress demand and cut spending? The Federal Reserve intervention in the MBS / Treasury bond markets is intended to increase demand, and gov spending is rather high in historical context.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#122

Post by CamperBob »

WalterBright wrote: post #117
CamperBob wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might read a bit about the history of the Bell System before lecturing us all about how the telephone network was built and paid for.

There's a lot more to it than AT&T's version. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html I don't see anything in AT&T's link suggesting it was paid for by the government.

A guaranteed monopoly lasting eighty years or so isn't a government subsidy?

It's not clear, and Cato's document doesn't explain, how anyone outside of major cities would have been able to get telephone service in the absence of monopoly guarantees. Universal service would have taken decades otherwise.

There is some hand-waving in the document comparing telephone service, which required expensive and widely distributed equipment, easements and infrastructure, with radio and TV (which itself was regulated out the wazoo). This comparison doesn't survive even momentary scrutiny.

The Bell System was the envy and standard of the world, and I don't see how it could have been anywhere near as successful at meeting the needs of the entire US population without those initial monopoly guarantees. Contrast the telephone system's universal service mandate with privately-operated electrical distribution networks: sizable chunks of New York City and Boston were still using DC power until the 1960s.

I think the biggest problem with the AT&T monopoly was that they were allowed to milk it for decades longer than was good for anyone, including the AT&T companies themselves. The company should have been broken up the minute they showed a net profit.

Even that opinion is debatable, though -- we didn't get the first laser from General Electric, or the first transistor from Hewlett Packard. Both these inventions and countless more came from a company that, by government fiat, could engage in long-term research beyond that needed to show an immediate profit.

So, yeah... that Cato position paper is pretty goofy, IMHO, and it's one of several that will be on my mind when it's time to re-up my own membership.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#123

Post by zem »

gaius wrote: post #89
mr_luc wrote: post #51

Not only is the author a troll -- as pointed out, he runs the Fake Steve Jobs blog -- his primary source, Nathan Myhyrvhvhlodold, is a troll. Let me clarify: Nathan might be a genius, but he's a genius whose words we can't ever risk taking seriously because of the raging conflicts of interest that imbue his every interaction with the press or social media. His company: > "Intellectual Ventures is a private company cl…

But you can't patent an idea - you have to have an implementation! Srsly - you have fundamentally misunderstood what a patent is. If it's "a method for mangling widgets" then you have to have built a real, working widget mangler too, and include the blueprints in the patent application.

That's how it should work (and in a famous (if probably apocryphal) story Sam Loyd was denied a patent on the 15 Puzzle because it was fundamentally insoluble and therefore there could be no "working model"), but these days patenting ideas seems to be a done thing

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#124

Post by c00ki3s »

rahooligan wrote: post #22

I think Twitter has immense value. And I would be happy to see it go public and achieve $billions in market cap. Cant say the same thing about facebook or zynga. sometimes i feel like facebook is that waste-of-my-time show that i get pulled into when i switch on my tv. it sucks up time from my life i will never get back.

Just thought I'd add this, here in Europe (Switzerland to be precise) nobody I've ever met uses Twitter. Facebook is omnipresent (omnipotent? ;)), but most folk don't even seem to know of Twitter (apart from techies, but still no users). Of course, small sample size etc.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#125

Post by WalterBright »

CamperBob wrote: post #122
WalterBright wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot more to it than AT&T's version. See http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html I don't see anything in AT&T's link suggesting it was paid for by the government.

A guaranteed monopoly lasting eighty years or so isn't a government subsidy? It's not clear, and Cato's document doesn't explain, how anyone outside of major cities would have been able to get telephone service in the absence of monopoly guarantees. Universal service would have taken decades otherwise. There is some hand-waving in the document comparing telephone service, which required expensive and widely distribut…

Just goes to show there is another side of the story besides the AT&T version.

I've never found a company yet that didn't believe that free market competition was good for everyone else, but that their market was unique and they should be protected from competitors.

The irony here is that at the time of the Kingsbury Commitment, phone networks were spreading across the country like wildfire. AT&T had already built its long distance network - it obviously didn't require a monopoly guarantee in order to do so.

From the article, there were 3,000 phone companies. Surely with that number plenty would do very well in places other than major cities where there weren't 2,999 competitors. Just as obviously, with so many competitors there were not high cost barriers to entry.

Re: The sad truth about Facebook

#126

Post by CamperBob »

WalterBright wrote: post #125
CamperBob wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A guaranteed monopoly lasting eighty years or so isn't a government subsidy? It's not clear, and Cato's document doesn't explain, how anyone outside of major cities would have been able to get telephone service in the absence of monopoly guarantees. Universal service would have taken decades otherwise. There is some hand-waving in the document comparing telephone service, which required expensive and widely distribut…

Just goes to show there is another side of the story besides the AT&T version. I've never found a company yet that didn't believe that free market competition was good for everyone else, but that their market was unique and they should be protected from competitors. The irony here is that at the time of the Kingsbury Commitment, phone networks were spreading across the country like wildfire. AT&T had already built it…

The irony here is that at the time of the Kingsbury Commitment, phone networks were spreading across the country like wildfire.

That's not good enough, though. The phone system was something that needed to be everywhere, including areas where poverty and/or population density could never have justified a business case.

Were those 3,000 phone companies all building compatible equipment? I don't know, but I'm guessing not. This would have been a problem when it came time to tie them into a single long distance network.

Perhaps some compromise could have been reached in which they would all agree to deploy compatible equipment... but is there really an economic advantage in having 3,000 regional monopolies all doing exactly the same thing, as opposed to one mega-monopoly? Either way the individual customer is going to have to deal with a monopoly.

Post reply on HN