Facebook

At this point, I am following this argument only to keep up with the latest Schneedisms.

That is some Schneedly gold right there.

Yeah, it's classic Schneed. Usually turns any decent, enjoyable conversation into crap.

So the question is, what is the next big social app that us oldies will plan to invade? Will it be Snapchat? Google+? Or something else in the works that we don't know about yet? Personally, I vote for the good ol' days of programming your own website and creating old virtual communities like the days of old (90's).

Instagram is my guess. It could be google + though. Facebook was out long before it became mainstream. You used to have a college email to even register if I recall.

I think this Facebook thing has legs

This thread has gone from dead to perfect.



I agree. This thread has brought some serious joy to my Friday morning.


:laughing2

you're absolutely wrong. You're looking at facebook's present capabilities and assuming that functionality has always been there. It hasn't. I know this. I've been on facebook shortly after it was expanded to all college networks, not just the one. The functionality was quite limited. There was a character limit on posts (much like character limits with text messages,) there was no integrated games, there was no posting videos, or pictures in wall posts; in terms of capabilities back then, myspace had more functionality.

The attraction with facebook came because it was mainly a college only social media application. That's why the teens (who became college students) migrated to facebook over myspace. When facebook opened itself up to everybody a few years later, that is when facebook started gaining steam, and especially when facebook started adding more of the functionality that we see today.



You're only partly correct. It is true that, now, social media is an established market. That's in large part due to the invention of the smartphone. Nobody ever said it simply has to be the newest thing. That newest thing has to have legs, it has to be interesting enough for people to want to use it. But to continue being the best, you can't allow your social media application to grow stale. That, in my opinion, is what has happened with facebook.

Zukerberg knows this, which is why his company's eventual moving away from the standard facebook app is inevitable. This is why he's working on a suite of social media applications - applications that can function on their own as well as be integrated. Some of those applications and features have failed miserably, (such as the facebook home app for smartphones) but this is what the facebook company has to do in order to remain top dog in the social media game. Zuckerberg will eventually move away from facebook altogether; he has to. With the way technology changes, if he isn't the one to come up with the next big social media application that takes the world by storm, someone else will. Right now, he has enough capital to buy out his closest competitors (such as instagram,) but, eventually, that won't be enough.

If you think facebook, itself, is enough to remain top dog for years to come, you're fooling yourself. There is plenty that the application could do better that its users have complained about.



This discussion is a creation of assumptions you made up to try and get a rise out of people. In my initial post, i said facebook has aged out. It has. Aged out doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be dead and buried - that's why i never committed to saying i'm burying facebook. you assumed that's what i meant and ran with it like some overly-excited fat kid with a fork in his hand. The problem is, you're going to trip over your fat little feet and poke yourself in the eye.
long story short, i'm impressed that facebook has lasted as long as it has. It's unheard of for applications like this to last more than five years. But by my own experiences with it, i see myself, and a lot of my facebook friends (even the newest older users) using it sparingly. Most who do have posts on there have automatic posts that come from other applications that can be integrated. That is why facebook is staying popular - it has its hands in every single cookie jar it can find. It's not that the application itself is that great. It's not that the application itself is such a different concept that others can't possibly improve on it or duplicate its success. It's just that the powers to be have to keep an innovation of ideas rolling in order to remain successful. Anytime anyone thinks an it company is here to stay and there's nowhere to go but up, that's when those companies wind up falling.

ohhh snap!

Listen bro, talk yourself in circles all you want, but this is what you said in your first post in this thread:

It's almost like a virtual race. Teenagers and college age students race to the next "big thing" and leave it when their parents show up. So, off to the next social media app.

It was this that produced such a visceral reaction in me. It's so saturated and dripping with stupid.

Instagram is my guess. It could be google + though. Facebook was out long before it became mainstream. You used to have a college email to even register if I recall.

Yes, you're absolutely right! And it went by that valid email address to put you in that college's Facebook network.

Instagram is owned by Facebook, so there's no real competition there. Google+ has been growing - especially because most everyone has either a Gmail account or an Android phone (or both.) A lot of my friends who don't have Facebook IM me through Google Hangouts.

Skinsguy are you obsessed with what the teens are doing on Facebook because you're a pedo? Did you like it better when the 14 year olds had their own space?

Target rich environment right?

i dont know why i am even venturing into the school yard but .....

I agree with skinsguy on the one point he has - facebook needs to keep buying out other start ups and apps to stay profitable. facebook by itself will continue to have new similar digital media platforms/apps that will become the flavor du jour.

facebook shares were plateaued at 40 +/- for a long time until 2013 when they created buzz by buying out Israel's popular social app Onazo (something like that). Since then shares jumped to 80 and have again plateaued.

unless facebook keeps buying up start ups to stay relevant, facebook by itself is obsolete. Its not like google, where google has no competition. yahoo tries to challenge in the market by buying einvite but no one can compete with google's search machine or buying power.

im going to sell half my facebook if it slips or they dont generate more buy out buzz. ive already doubled my money, may be time to hop off before the train slows down too much.

facebook, by itself, is dead and there is no way they can keep buying start ups to control the industry.



...... troll on

i dont know why i am even venturing into the school yard but .....

I agree with skinsguy on the one point he has - facebook needs to keep buying out other start ups and apps to stay profitable. facebook by itself will continue to have new similar digital media platforms/apps that will become the flavor du jour.

facebook shares were plateaued at 40 +/- for a long time until 2013 when they created buzz by buying out Israel's popular social app Onazo (something like that). Since then shares jumped to 80 and have again plateaued.

unless facebook keeps buying up start ups to stay relevant, facebook by itself is obsolete. Its not like google, where google has no competition. yahoo tries to challenge in the market by buying einvite but no one can compete with google's search machine or buying power.

im going to sell half my facebook if it slips or they dont generate more buy out buzz. ive already doubled my money, may be time to hop off before the train slows down too much.

facebook, by itself, is dead and there is no way they can keep buying start ups to control the industry.



...... troll on

I'll set aside my troll hat and put on my MBA in Finance hat (note I'm not taking off my pompous asshole hat).

You reference the stock price and the profitability as if they're one in the same. You seem like you understand the difference but it's nuanced so I'll explain.

Facebook's stock price is currently $82, which is trading at 76 times earnings (76.0 PE ratio). The stock price has soared to 82 because of the expectations for profitability that it has built up amongst investors as a direct result of the acquisitions you quite rightly point out.

But those expectations are unrealistic. To justify a stock price that high Facebook's earnings would have to be insane. When it becomes obvious to the investor community that they will inevitably fail to meet such lofty expectations, the stock price will drop. So yes I'm with you, if I were you I would shed some shares based simply on the reality that it's overvalued due to (good old Greenspan...) irrational exuberance.

But none of this is to say that Facebook won't continue to be profitable and won't continue to dominate the social network space. The stock price might belong closer to $40 per share, but that's not to say there's a single social network that represents even a remote threat at present. And it's certainly not to say that Facebook doesn't have the human or financial capital to continue playing defense and buying up other platforms. It will definitely continue to grow and generate large profits. It just won't do so at a rate strong enough to justify a $82 stock price.

Facebook's stock price may be due for a precipitous decline but the company's market position is as firmly entrenched as a market leader in its respective space as any firm out there.