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

NASDAQ:FB

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 319 posts

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#301

Post by gtirloni »

corford wrote: post #216
waterlesscloud wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your basic issue is that in your judgement the founders and employees don't deserve their level of success? Which internet company does, in your judgement?

Frankly, I struggle to see how virtually any internet company warrants a valuation north of $100 billion dollars. Especially those with a P/E ratio approaching or beyond 100. $100,000,000,000 is a VERY big number. It feels almost absurd (to me at least) that a single company can create that much "value" in less than 8 years. But maybe I'm the one with the problem and I just can't get my head around "web scale" econom…

I tend to look at prices as a joke. An illusion that I'm willing to play a part in.

When I apply that logic to FB's 100bn valuation, it makes sense. Doesn't make us all look any less stupid though.

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#302

Post by mquander »

kamaal wrote: post #291
mquander wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, you're the one describing things as "evil", "evil", and "satanic." The single worst thing jacquesm had to say about Facebook is that it makes money by getting people to give it information and then selling it, which is a fact. Respond to what people actually say, not what you read into their remarks.

Dude, the only thing you guys are constantly doing is to find reasons to make Facebook look bad and discredit them for their success. Facebook, has something called as 'Terms and Conditions' of usage like any other piece of software/product on earth. Any piece of software/service/product you are likely to use has clauses that may not fit into what you would like to hear. And people accept those clauses because the ne…

Any piece of software/service/product you are likely to use has clauses that may not fit into what you would like to hear. And people accept those clauses because the net utility of the product is more than what they trade for the clauses.

By the way, this is absolutely not true. The majority of the software I use is licensed with terms that I agree with completely, and does things that I find totally reasonable. You make it sound like behaving counter to users' interests is a prerequisite for creating good software, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#303

Post by kamaal »

gtirloni wrote: post #300
kamaal wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Facebook is the new AOL. There is nothing wrong with that actually. >>And the worst part of it is there is a kid acting as CEO calling himself a "hacker". Hackers do not turn websites into corporations. Imagine if all ISP's were turned into "AOL's". Please define what a hacker is. Seriously you make it look as though a hacker as just somebody who keeps doing tech work for free or a throw away price. What is wrong w…

Money, money, money. Valuation. Money. Rich. Money. Kid on dorm got rich. Money. Money. I don't see much about ethics, changing the world, expanding the frontiers of science, moving people out of poverty, anything like that. Now please play this right and tell me Mr. Zuck has donated lot of money he got from his business, how that's made the world better, etc.

Define ethics?

If I keep my money to myself, is it unethical?

Frontiers of science?

Ever checked out Facebook's Github repo?

What do you mean to imply? Is it that a person must donate his wealth and distribute it among the poor to to qualify as a successful?

I am not going say that Mr Zuck has donated a lot of money he got from his business because I don't consider that as something he has to do qualify as successful.

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#304

Post by gtirloni »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #224
abhaga wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An iteration with huge improvement. Would you say if Google wouldn't have happened, we would be fine searching on Yahoo, Altavista and Lycos? And webmail would be fine and dandy with Yahoo Mail and Hotmail if there was no Gmail?

Facebook was at least that big a jump over its previous alternatives. That's the point.

Personally I'm only on FB because my family insist on being there. The site is ugly confusing, I do not get any rewards from being there except that I, again, see my family's posts.

If my family was on whatever other social network, I'd be there.

So perhaps we should discuss how FB actually got luck and got people to sign up instead of praising some innovative web services.

Hint: games and cat pictures.

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#305

Post by gtirloni »

kposehn wrote: post #163
Aqua_Geek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a bad sign? Doesn't it mean that shares were priced appropriately and FB didn't leave much on the table?

It does indeed mean that the shares were priced appropriately. I would expect some movement up and down over the quarter until they deliver results. That is when we'll see the movement either way.

s/until/if ever/

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#306

Post by jacquesm »

kamaal wrote: post #286
jacquesm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top-voted comment on this thread really should be words of praise for what Zuckerberg and his team have accomplished. The top voted comment actually is an excerpt from a book by a man that I respect a whole lot more than I respect Mark Zuckerberg. For one he seemed a genuinely nice and modest human being. He also influenced the lives of countless people by being creative rather than by selling off their private…

Aha! You know what- Surprise, Nearly everything is a reinvention + addition of a few extra things from the past. You think SpaceX isn't a reinvention of what NASA has been doing since decades? Let alone that, if SpaceX is even doing all that its because somebody like NASA and space research organizations of various countries have contributed to fundamental things required for Space exploration. Nearly everything you…

> Now this comment shows some element of envy and jealousy. Because discrediting some one's work by calling them evil. And justifying your own failure as made look success because you are not that so called evil won't work.

Your comment shows a complete lack of reading comprehension and puts words in my mouth.

My 'failure' is good enough for me, thank you.

You have several items in your pocket that I had a hand in, and you've probably used a piece of software that I wrote at some point in your life.

I don't call profit making corporations evil, I don't call rich people evil, I don't envy Mark Zuckerberg.

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#307

Post by denniedarko »

gtirloni wrote: post #300
kamaal wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Facebook is the new AOL. There is nothing wrong with that actually. >>And the worst part of it is there is a kid acting as CEO calling himself a "hacker". Hackers do not turn websites into corporations. Imagine if all ISP's were turned into "AOL's". Please define what a hacker is. Seriously you make it look as though a hacker as just somebody who keeps doing tech work for free or a throw away price. What is wrong w…

Money, money, money. Valuation. Money. Rich. Money. Kid on dorm got rich. Money. Money. I don't see much about ethics, changing the world, expanding the frontiers of science, moving people out of poverty, anything like that. Now please play this right and tell me Mr. Zuck has donated lot of money he got from his business, how that's made the world better, etc.

Well he hasn't yet but he has joined Gates and Buffet in the giving pledge (you pledge to donate half of your wealth to charity).

http://www.fastcompany.com/1708405/mark-zuckerberg-joins-war...

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#308

Post by maigret »

gtirloni wrote: post #300
kamaal wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Facebook is the new AOL. There is nothing wrong with that actually. >>And the worst part of it is there is a kid acting as CEO calling himself a "hacker". Hackers do not turn websites into corporations. Imagine if all ISP's were turned into "AOL's". Please define what a hacker is. Seriously you make it look as though a hacker as just somebody who keeps doing tech work for free or a throw away price. What is wrong w…

Money, money, money. Valuation. Money. Rich. Money. Kid on dorm got rich. Money. Money. I don't see much about ethics, changing the world, expanding the frontiers of science, moving people out of poverty, anything like that. Now please play this right and tell me Mr. Zuck has donated lot of money he got from his business, how that's made the world better, etc.

You can hardly measure the impact Facebook has on society. Of course, FB and Zuck have their dark side. But people are looking on FB for the people they love for a reason. And hundreds of millions like to use FB in their everyday life - that's why the IPO is so celebrated. FB is now a huge brand.

I firmly believe the social networks - including FB - have a lot to do with the uprisings in the arab world. I think it contributes a lot to make the world flatter, allowing people to live where they want to while staying in contact with their family, former coworkers, etc. It also inspires so many other social tools that allow to transfer knowledge much more efficiently anywhere on earth.

Truth is, FB is still struggling to make money. The banks kept the stock at IPO level with huge bids. But whatever, they brought a fantastic story. And they extracted huge money from the ad market, for sure. But who knows if Zuck will not follow Bill Gates path later?

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#309

Post by maigret »

heelhook wrote: post #290
jacquesm wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8917836/Faceb... Targeting ads, selling to advertisers, giving it to advertisers so they can better target their ads. It's probably a matter of degree rather than an absolute. Fact is, if you give your information to facebook you have no idea where it's going to end up and you have relatively little control over it. Yes, you can control what other web users see about you…

Doesn't your argument apply to google and most search engines too? They also sell ads targeted according to the information they have about you. And hey, just like google and others, they allow you to adjust your privacy settings to a great degree, have you visited the privacy settings lately? Yes, they have few controls in the past, but such is the nature of building and iterating, you can't get everything right in…

My search engine(s) have much more private information about me than Facebook. If I had to disclose one of both dataset, I'd go for FB anytime. Facebook is the friendly persona of us, the search engine - the real private one.

Re: NASDAQ:FB

#310

Post by maigret »

beedogs wrote: post #280
staunch wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be thoughtlessness. You can't honestly look at Facebook's contribution to the Arab Spring (and similar social justice causes) or the millions of people it has reconnected (long-lost family/friends) and think that SpaceX has any chance of creating comparable positive impact at any point in the near future. I like SpaceX too. It's every geek's childhood fantasy. It's a great thing. Elon is the real Tony Stark.…

> You can't honestly look at Facebook's contribution to the Arab Spring (and similar social justice causes) or the millions of people it has reconnected (long-lost family/friends) and think that SpaceX has any chance of creating comparable positive impact at any point in the near future. You absolutely can. The telephone did those things, too. So does Twitter. If it weren't Facebook, something else would've been used…

That's the point. Facebook brought social network to the masses. In my environment, Twitter is still a tool for geeks. Facebook has brought to hundreds of millions the broadcasting and sharing features. You can't deny that. It could have been something else than Facebook, but it hadn't. Someone else than Neil Armstrong could have landed on the moon, but he was the guy. And he deserves the credit rightly. Past and events are what they are.
Post reply on HN