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

Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#11

Post by tom_rath »

falsestprophet wrote: post #8
aston wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MySpace and Facebook aren't making more than enough money. That's why FIM doesn't break out MySpace numbers and why Facebook raised a huge round. Business rolling in profit don't need anybody else's money.

If you don't think Myspace and Facebook could be profitable, then I don't know why you are in this business. They are not profitable now because they are investing in growth (which, like any investment, is a gamble). They could scale down their staff and achieve a very good return on capital.

So, they're losing money on every customer but they'll make it up on volume?

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#12

Post by [deleted] »

jlam wrote: post #9
tim2 wrote: post #3

Took me a while to figure this out. Press release in disguise. I'd not be so harsh if the predictions weren't so vague.

I don't know how you could say that. If anything, the article calls for the demise of walled gardens: “Early services, such as CompuServe, Prodigy or AOL, began as ‘walled gardens’ before they opened up to become websites. The early e-mail services could send messages only within their own walls (rather as Facebook's messaging does today). Instant-messaging, too, started closed, but is gradually opening up. In social…

[deleted]

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#13

Post by tim2 »

jlam wrote: post #9
tim2 wrote: post #3

Took me a while to figure this out. Press release in disguise. I'd not be so harsh if the predictions weren't so vague.

I don't know how you could say that. If anything, the article calls for the demise of walled gardens: “Early services, such as CompuServe, Prodigy or AOL, began as ‘walled gardens’ before they opened up to become websites. The early e-mail services could send messages only within their own walls (rather as Facebook's messaging does today). Instant-messaging, too, started closed, but is gradually opening up. In social…

Still just vague analogies. It's not that hard to give a more concrete example of what's possible. Why don't people do this? Because you'd see that this doesn't really provide anything compelling at all.

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#14

Post by falsestprophet »

parker wrote: post #10
falsestprophet wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think Myspace and Facebook could be profitable, then I don't know why you are in this business. They are not profitable now because they are investing in growth (which, like any investment, is a gamble). They could scale down their staff and achieve a very good return on capital.

I think this article's sentiments is just to point out how tech business that are given highly speculative valuations rarely pan out. Think about Facebook's implied value of $15 Billion. A traditional company is valued at about 2 or 3 times annual revenue, or perhaps 8 to 10 times annual EBITDA. This would require Facebook to mature with revenues around $5 Billion a year, and EBITDA of $1.5 Billion. Their speculated…

Facebook is rapidly growing abroad. I think the $15 billion dollar valuation is silly, but Facebook is not a textiles company. Optimism is not unreasonable, however it is -- of course -- speculative.

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#15

Post by falsestprophet »

tom_rath wrote: post #11
falsestprophet wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think Myspace and Facebook could be profitable, then I don't know why you are in this business. They are not profitable now because they are investing in growth (which, like any investment, is a gamble). They could scale down their staff and achieve a very good return on capital.

So, they're losing money on every customer but they'll make it up on volume?

Yes, they will make it up by increasing volume. They are spending the money on employees (to grow traffic) and servers (to accommodate traffic). They aren't spending it on hookers and private jets like Enron.

The servers are one-time expenses. I don't know how Facebook is booking them because the company is private so I can't read its quarterly statement. But, if we could I bet they would be a special expense. They are buying the capacity to support their userbase. You simply don't need to do that every year.

They are also spending a lot on engineers. I think they spent this money wisely. The Facebook application system generates a lot of free attention.

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#16

Post by parker »

falsestprophet wrote: post #15
tom_rath wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, they're losing money on every customer but they'll make it up on volume?

Yes, they will make it up by increasing volume. They are spending the money on employees (to grow traffic) and servers (to accommodate traffic). They aren't spending it on hookers and private jets like Enron. The servers are one-time expenses. I don't know how Facebook is booking them because the company is private so I can't read its quarterly statement. But, if we could I bet they would be a special expense. They a…

Dude, servers aren't a one-time expense... in accounting it's called a capital expense, and it's depreciated. Most computer technology is depreciated over a course of two years, simply because of the assumption that that expense will re-occur in two years.

Do you think Google's server farms have the same racked units that they put into place in 1998? That's crazy talk.

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#17

Post by [deleted] »

parker wrote: post #16
falsestprophet wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they will make it up by increasing volume. They are spending the money on employees (to grow traffic) and servers (to accommodate traffic). They aren't spending it on hookers and private jets like Enron. The servers are one-time expenses. I don't know how Facebook is booking them because the company is private so I can't read its quarterly statement. But, if we could I bet they would be a special expense. They a…

Dude, servers aren't a one-time expense... in accounting it's called a capital expense, and it's depreciated. Most computer technology is depreciated over a course of two years, simply because of the assumption that that expense will re-occur in two years. Do you think Google's server farms have the same racked units that they put into place in 1998? That's crazy talk.

[deleted]

Re: Social networking will become ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean it's a business.

#18

Post by falsestprophet »

parker wrote: post #16
falsestprophet wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they will make it up by increasing volume. They are spending the money on employees (to grow traffic) and servers (to accommodate traffic). They aren't spending it on hookers and private jets like Enron. The servers are one-time expenses. I don't know how Facebook is booking them because the company is private so I can't read its quarterly statement. But, if we could I bet they would be a special expense. They a…

Dude, servers aren't a one-time expense... in accounting it's called a capital expense, and it's depreciated. Most computer technology is depreciated over a course of two years, simply because of the assumption that that expense will re-occur in two years. Do you think Google's server farms have the same racked units that they put into place in 1998? That's crazy talk.

Thanks for correcting me. My self-education in finance is incomplete. So, is it your opinion that Facebook is only reporting half of the cost of their servers when they talk about last year's annual loss? I still suspect that the numbers they throw around are a simple in-out calculation.

But, in any event, a two year lifespan for a server is a little pessimistic.

Post reply on HN