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

The end of Facebook

blogs.forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: The end of Facebook

#61

Post by saturdaysaint »

rkwz wrote: post #4

So, what problems do facebook/social networks solve? * sharing photos * keeping in touch with friends and families and getting the latest updates from them * events * games * sharing links and stuff and all these things from one place! is there any other site/technology that provides all these benefits in one place?

Agreed. Facebook will probably fall in and out of fashion, but they'll have a business as long as they use the social graph to solve real problems. I think it has a chance at winning the emerging messaging war - it's a widely adopted, proven, cross-platform messaging service.

Re: The end of Facebook

#62

Post by alinajaf »

bxr wrote: post #39
JonnieCache wrote: post #3

This is borne out by my experience. A slowly increasing number of my friends are cutting down their use, and eventually leaving. This might just be due to my cohort of friends getting older, but the article claims it is a general trend. What is definitely true, is that nobody I know feels anything positive about facebook, at all. It is seen simply as a sinister, addictive[1] necessary evil. This is the case regardles…

A slowly increasing number of my friends are cutting down their use, and eventually leaving. I know what they say about the plural of antidote, but I've personally noticed the same. I use it less, and when I do use it, I notice the people I care about on facebook are using it less too. Everything you say mirrors the response to facebook I've been seeing. Its no longer a toy, its just that thing you have and slowly wo…

Perhaps you mean anecdote?

Re: The end of Facebook

#63

Post by JoelSutherland »

Shenglong wrote: post #55

This is a little off topic, but did anyone else immediately discredit this article when they saw "to" where "too" was supposed to be? On Forbes of all places...

Even Michael Jordan missed the occasional dunk. It wasn't a reason to kick him off the team.

There is nothing less interesting or meaningful than a typo.

Re: The end of Facebook

#65

Post by edanm »

Shenglong wrote: post #55

This is a little off topic, but did anyone else immediately discredit this article when they saw "to" where "too" was supposed to be? On Forbes of all places...

Not immediately, but there are more errors later in the article. Not a reason not to read, just really surprising from a "major" news source.

Re: The end of Facebook

#66

Post by edanm »

JoelSutherland wrote: post #63
Shenglong wrote: post #55

This is a little off topic, but did anyone else immediately discredit this article when they saw "to" where "too" was supposed to be? On Forbes of all places...

Even Michael Jordan missed the occasional dunk. It wasn't a reason to kick him off the team. There is nothing less interesting or meaningful than a typo.

(Even more off-topic)

You really reminded me of Jordan's "Failure" commercial, which everyone should see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45mMioJ5szc

Re: The end of Facebook

#68

Post by saturdaysaint »

I think Facebook has gotten boring in the same way that Google has gotten boring to me: it's become a reliable, efficient tool that I can use so quickly it's almost invisible to me. I throw up a picture every so often and get feedback from friends and family. I can plan a party and quickly/easily organize invitations. I can quickly reconnect with someone if they come to mind, whether or not I have their current phone number or e-mail (which used to be a real problem). I love how they seem to focus on their core products and speed rather than rapidly expanding the feature set (like seemingly every other social network).

The News Feed has become less and less "engaging" and chatter-filled which might be a problem for their business model, but not for me. I'm interested in most of the people on my friends list in some way, but their stray thoughts aren't the best way of relating to them.

Re: The end of Facebook

#69

Post by chadgeidel »

dagw wrote: post #20
DrJokepu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's usually not competitors that can hurt or even kill a product, it's substitute goods. Cart manufacturers in the early 20th century didn't see their business diminishing because of the sudden emergence of a better cart manufacturer, it has happened because of the invention of the automobile. Similarly, if something threatens Facebook's position, it's quite possible that it will be a substitute product, not a direc…

A significant substitute product of Facebook is real life interactions with your friends, for example. I think that's totally missing the point. I don't think anyone uses Facebook as a substitute for real life interaction. I imagine that most people use it partially to coordinate the meeting up with said friends and partially to interact with people whom, due geography or various life circumstances, it is infeasible…

About half of my Facebook friends (IRL) are actually too far away to meet up with in real life. Facebook is a handy way to "keep up".

Unfortunately they don't post as often as I would like - instead preferring to talk "face to face". :-(

Re: The end of Facebook

#70

Post by bostonscott »

tokenadult wrote: post #53

I like this line in the submitted article: "But to value every company as if they are the next Google, rather than valuing them all as if one of them might be, is pretty much the definition of a bubble." I think there is insight in that. Not every big new online service can have the long-term revenue growth and user engagement that Google has managed to achieve. (Some of the stories about Groupon point out aptly that…

Is that really the definition of a bubble though?

A bubble implies irrational valuations. Trying to value a company as if they are the next Google is the purpose of the stock market and can be perfectly rational.

Google sets a standard, and by its success, it demonstrates what other similar companies could do, which gives investors more confidence in upstarts like Facebook, which then leads to higher valuations. The state of our economy also leads to higher valuations - as money is worth less today than it was when Google went public, and there are fewer productive places for investors to put their money than when Google went public.

At times when valuations become increasingly irrational you could say we are approaching a bubble, but this article's author did not offer a rational argument to back up his points.

Post reply on HN