Why do posters in Hacker News constantly confuse a disclaimer with disclosure.
After Facebook fails
91–100 of 214 posts
Re: After Facebook fails
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree with just about all of that. > "Their mobile presence is at the behest of Apple, Google and (arguably) Microsoft." A majority of non-techy types I know bought smart phones because they "do facebook". There is a deeply symbiotic relationship there, and woe is the mobile maker that couldn't provide a Facebook app.
Sure, but did you notice how they use Facebook? I've watched (and asked) several of my non-techy friends and there reaction was always the same: "Yeah, I just update my feed, look for updates of my friends and that's it." I don't see how Facebook wants to make money of such an usage pattern, so at the moment it doesn't help them very much that people have smart phones to "do facebook".
If people have access to Facebook 24/7, in their pockets, they are more likely to become dependent on it in their daily lives.
The mobile app fuels the addiction which keeps people logged in and coming back every day on their browser.
Re: After Facebook fails
#93I have no idea if Facebook is valued correctly or not, however I think this misses a vital point. Facebook is not nearly the same as other web ventures. It's ability to target ads seems secondary to this: From http://www.kenburbary.com/2011/03/facebook-demographics-revi... , slightly out of date, but still useful: - Average user visits the site 40 times per month - Average user spends an 23 minutes (23:20 to be preci…
In general, most people who are looking at facebook for any length of time are either playing a social game or looking at photos of themselves. It's confusing to me how this is a viable long term business model. Popularity can be a fickle thing... Nobody doubts they have eyeballs and valuable data, and it seems like that should be profitable, but that doesn't mean it will be.
Well, it is profitable - the question is whether it's $100 B profitable.
Re: After Facebook fails
#94I don't know if Facebook is necessarily going to completely fail anytime soon, but he does have a lot of good points, like how bad the targeted ads are, and that the whole concept of targeted ads is not great.
I think that Google is parsing gmail a lot more closely than we might be comfortable with, and I would not be surprised if an even more intelligent system eventually was applied to Facebook conversations and used to create targeted ads, with or without our consent.
The idea of "intentcasting" what you want to buy at the advertisers and then having control over their responses is a great idea and something I would like to experiment with at some point if I have time.
Within two or three decades, I think there are going to be major, major changes, not just with social networking, but with computing and even the overall nature of computing and even human society.
Yes, we do want, should and shortly will have more control over our personal conversations and data etc., but it goes beyond that. I think that non-commercial distributed but at the same time more private content oriented networking will become a big thing within the next decade or so, and that network will be even more difficult for commercial interests to take advantage of. And it won't be hosted on a giant commercial centralized system.
Beyond the private distributed social/content networks etc., you will see artificial general intelligence that blows Google's gmail parsing and everything else out of the water. I believe that personal data and conversations will generally be stored more privately and that people will voluntarily take advantage of these AIs (AGIs) to act as agents and assistants.
I also think that these powerful artificial general intelligences are going to put the nail in the coffin for the current infinite growth consumer driven "economic" model, which will be replaced by a more sophisticated and humane descendant.
Re: After Facebook fails
#95This essay reads like an advanced lifeform encountering, and misunderstanding, the average human consumer. Two quotes stick out: (1) That he goes "on Facebook. . . as infrequently as I possibly can." This statement disqualifies his entire experience. Hundreds of millions of average-consumers use Facebook DAILY. These users update their content, they integrate more of their life. They click the like buttons. They shar…
Grossly misinformed is perhaps a bit much. I don't think a guy like Doc Searls is so out of touch to not know what the general populace is doing. He contributed to The Cluetrain Manifesto, he's a well-respected writer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Searls
I think making statements like what you quote in (1), he's making a bet: I understand what people are really truly like, and this stuff will prove to be just a fad; eventually, people will realize I'm right. He predicts online social networks as we know them to decline in 2013.
If he's right, then it doesn't matter what Facebook users are doing today, even if they are using it daily. There was a time when MySpace and Friendster were the top social networks on the Internet too. Facebook just out-executed them. The interesting question is if Facebook had not been around, would MySpace or Friendster still have been around in 10 years anyway? Or would it have been proven to be too faddish after the activity level reached a certain boiling point?
Re: After Facebook fails
#96Facebook has a clear monetization model. If Facebook releases a product like AdSense - which shows content relevant ads as well as targeted ads will be a great blow to Google.
Also, as far as mobile is concerned there are apps like Karma (http://getkarma.com) and TagTile that Facebook recently acquired - and they showed a great way to monetize using Facebook data.
There are some many apps that have crossed millions of users just because of Facebook integration.
Haters gonna hate but Facebook is here to stay for a long, long time.
Re: After Facebook fails
#97He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users. I think this is a huge issue that's not discussed enough. Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demograph…
Based off the ads the author cites in the article the issue is the lack of data, not poor targeting by advertisers. For example the author wouldn't see the "Boyfriend Wanted" ad if he listed himself as married in his Facebook profile (Facebook aggressively forbids dating ads targeted towards people who list themselves as married or in a relationship). All online advertising platforms rely on advertisers to target the…
I have always listed myself as married (even as public information), yet I see a dating ad on my sidebar. The two top ads were for high heel shoes.
Either FB has me pegged as a two timing trannie, or their targeting is really poor.
Re: After Facebook fails
#98It occurs to me that instead of being an advertising platform facebook would be better off as a marketplace platform for real goods. e.g. stop competing with google because you don't have intent and start competing with amazon and ebay because listing real products that people can instantly buy would be much more compelling. People don't like ads no matter what their content, everyone does like a bargain/deal on something they're interested in. Facebook knows what we're interested in, it can offer us deals on that stuff directly and it can immediately show off our purchases to all our friends and the deal that we got...
Re: After Facebook fails
#99He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users. I think this is a huge issue that's not discussed enough. Facebook has all the data but no real targeting. This stems from two core issues: 1) they don't seem to use their immense datasets as effectively as Google does and most importantly 2) they rely on the advertisers to target their ads. Advertisers, even when handed the best demograph…
> He points out some of the terribly targeted ads that Facebook pushes on users..
So true.. Why don't I get ads like this:
"It's almost lunch time, the weather is great and we kind-of know where you are. Here are 3 lunch places in the area with outdoor seating and a few available tables."
Instead I get mostly dating sites and google-translated ads to "make money fast"
Re: After Facebook fails
#100Here's my take on Facebook (disclaimer: I work for Google, these opinions are purely my own and not representative of the company, yadda yadda yadda). Display advertising works best when you have sufficient, quality inventory (publishers whose sites serve ads) such that you attract advertisers in sufficient quantity and quality. Targeting in display ads works because from the publishers, the intermediary has informat…
Agree with just about all of that. > "Their mobile presence is at the behest of Apple, Google and (arguably) Microsoft." A majority of non-techy types I know bought smart phones because they "do facebook". There is a deeply symbiotic relationship there, and woe is the mobile maker that couldn't provide a Facebook app.
> A majority of non-techy types I know bought smart phones because they "do facebook". There is a deeply symbiotic relationship there, and woe is the mobile maker that couldn't provide a Facebook app.
I finally decided to upgrade my iPhone 3 a couple of months ago when the Facebook app stopped working for some obscure reason and I couldn't update the app anymore. I'm a programmer, but probably not a "techie".
Also, I think it's kind of wrong to continue making this distinction between "real life" and "FB-life" or "internet-life", as in "real life friends" (which are ok) versus "Facebook friends" (which presumably are just a "lie" or "fake").