Facebook to blue screen shortly

October 25, 2007 5:51 AM

Microsoft buys stake in Facebook. Microsoft has paid $240m (£117m) for a 1.6% stake in Facebook that values the hugely popular social networking site at $15bn (£7.3bn). Facebook spurned an offer from Microsoft's rival Google, which was also keen to invest the site. Microsoft will also sell internet ads for Facebook outside the United States as part of the deal that took several weeks of negotiating. Mark Zuckerberg started the online social networking site in his Harvard University dorm room less than four years ago.

Mr Zuckerberg, 23, has indicated he would like to hold off on an initial public offering for at least two more years. He rebuffed a $1bn takeover offer from Yahoo last year. Facebook expects to make a profit of $30m this year so on conventional valuations a $15bn price tag would look expensive.

posted by Tommy Gnosis (114 comments total)

From his Facebook entry:

Mark has 535 friends.

I am bullish on Mark's friends count.
posted by psmealey at 5:55 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

The irrelevant buys the replaceable. News at 11.
posted by spitbull at 5:56 AM on October 25, 2007 [6 favorites]

"several weeks of negotiationing"?
posted by smackfu at 5:56 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sorry, but after 2-3 months of playing around on it. I really don't get the Facebook thing. It mostly just seems like a high gloss version of MySpace, just with more useless widgets available to add to it. Having been out of the dating scene for over a decade now, I'm sure I'm not its target audience, but other than for wasting time on all kinds of "define me define me" self-indulgent bullshit, what's the allure?
posted by psmealey at 6:06 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Holding off on an IPO for two more years? Refusing a $1bil takeover offer? This guy is nuts. What the masses give, they can also take away. Facebook is already being heavily degraded by the massive quantity of insipid applications; it's hard to say how much longer it will enjoy its time in the spotlight, but it isn't going to be forever. Like myspace and Nexopia before it, it'll eventually get dumped for a younger, prettier, and smarter web app.

Facebook expects to make a profit of $30m this year so on conventional valuations a $15bn price tag would look expensive.

Ya don't say. Youtube actually has significant assets and technology, but in the case of Facebook, there's no there, there.
posted by mek at 6:08 AM on October 25, 2007

...other than for wasting time on all kinds of "define me define me" self-indulgent bullshit, what's the allure?

Scrabulous. That's basically what I use it for.
posted by BackwardsCity at 6:09 AM on October 25, 2007 [3 favorites]

Somebody poke him.
posted by psmealey at 6:12 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Holding off on an IPO for two more years? Refusing a $1bil takeover offer? This guy is nuts. What the masses give, they can also take away.

The article doesn't say if he got the $240MM in cash or in MSFT stock. If it's the former with no lock-up, that's actually a pretty sweet deal. He gets nearly a quarter billion now for his sweat equity, and still holds onto 98.4% of the company. Facebook could continue to take off and give him more opportunities to enrich himself, or it could crater tomorrow.

Either way, he walks away with a shitload of cash for doing something that most of us were making $20k a year or less for when we were his age.
posted by psmealey at 6:16 AM on October 25, 2007

Microsoft has thrown money at you with SuperPoke! Poke back?
posted by fandango_matt at 6:16 AM on October 25, 2007 [7 favorites]

I organise most of my social life over Facebook now. It's probably actually saving me money on my phone bill.
posted by jacalata at 6:19 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ya don't say. Youtube actually has significant assets and technology, but in the case of Facebook, there's no there, there

This is not really true. In terms of physical assets they have a lot of hard drives and RAM. And hard drives depreciate rather rapidly so basically have no resale value. RAM and other hardware, well I guess that's worth some cash.

The technology isn't all that special either and can be built mostly using off the shelf open source and free software for storage and retrieval.

All YouTube has is the fun proprietary Google technology, lots of users, and enough lawyers and contacts in the media industry to keep them from getting sued to death. In terms of technology very little exciting is coming out of "Web 2.0" sites atm.
posted by public at 6:20 AM on October 25, 2007

MS is desperate to get some of that Web 2.0 shinyness in order to make people forget about the flop that Vista is turning out to be.

Have a look at their 5 year chart, a pitiful $5 increase over that time period. You'd earn more money keeping your cash in the mattress.
posted by PenDevil at 6:23 AM on October 25, 2007

I do my online stalking on myspace. I go for the lower socio economic 15 year old. Easier to lure.
posted by mattoxic at 6:32 AM on October 25, 2007

...other than for wasting time on all kinds of "define me define me" self-indulgent bullshit, what's the allure?

You have to be in college to understand it. Pictures from drunken parties and bar nights along with 24/7 easy access e-stalking of your current crush/hook-up buddy and all your old highschool friends now scattered all over creation is a powerful combination for bored 18-24yr olds.

The marketing power of a direct line to literally millions of the best and brightest on the verge of coming into serious discretionary income is unimaginable. Plus the real time demographic marketing research from self supplied information, thats a lot of info that companies would kill for.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:37 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Seconding BackwardsCity. If it weren't for Scrabulous, I would have put it away by now. As it is, I have to log in several times a day (hour) to lose game after game of Scrabble.

At least it's free.
posted by barnacles at 6:37 AM on October 25, 2007

You have to be in college to understand it. Pictures from drunken parties and bar nights along with 24/7 easy access e-stalking of your current crush/hook-up buddy and all your old highschool friends now scattered all over creation is a powerful combination for bored 18-24yr olds.

Thing is a year ago, I knew literally nobody on facebook, my friends were on Myspace. Now a larger chunk of people I know are on there and MySpace is dead. These networks are very transportable, very quickly. So what is Microsoft buying, exactly?
posted by bonaldi at 6:46 AM on October 25, 2007

Sorry, but after 2-3 months of playing around on it. I really don't get the Facebook thing. It mostly just seems like a high gloss version of MySpace

Facebook is for keeping track of your friends. With facebook, I can basically keep up with friends, and send them a note whenever I feel like. I don't need to worry about keeping up to date with email addresses or whatever, assuming people keep using facebook.

As far as the "widgets and stuff" those are all pretty new, just a few months old, from back when facebook opened it's API. I think most users are annoyed by most of the applications, but really like one or two of 'em. Before those, all you could really do was mail people, write on their wall 'poke' them, etc.

Google is supposed to come out with their own social networking project in November (Other then Orkut, which they own but isn't popular in the U.S)
posted by delmoi at 6:48 AM on October 25, 2007

Having the IPO now would seem more reasonable as myspace is quickly becoming the sinking ship friendster once was.

Then again, maybe facebook will avoid the previous two's mistakes (effectively keep spam in check, limited ads, etc.).
posted by drezdn at 6:49 AM on October 25, 2007

Despite the fact that Microsoft is evil, my opinion in Facebook would not change if they were purchased. I would STILL think Facebook is an overrated example of a stupid genre of web sites.
posted by DU at 6:55 AM on October 25, 2007

Then again, maybe facebook will avoid the previous two's mistakes (effectively keep spam in check, limited ads, etc.).

The writing's already on the wall. I personally have seen a bit of an upswing in spam from people claiming to know me, but want me to check out their tinyurl link, and MSFT looks to be covering the advertising angle.

Whatever Facebook was 2 months or 2 days ago, it's exactly about to make the same turn as Friendster and MySpace.
posted by psmealey at 6:57 AM on October 25, 2007

other than for wasting time on all kinds of "define me define me" self-indulgent bullshit, what's the allure?

I'm in my mid-thirties, and I really like Facebook. It's a good way to stay in touch with old friends and manage relationships with more difficult personalities. My wife is not from Canada, and it has been difficult for our family to interact with my original circle of friends, who now have kids and all that sort of stuff...we kind of lacked a social life, because I've noticed that it's the women who work hard to set up play dates and so on, and my wife has no connections, and no good understanding how to make those connections. She's also introverted as well.

What Facebook does is allow me, as a Dad, to set up play dates and so on, by connecting with, and getting to know the wives of my college friends, and managing those relationships. And now we have a social life!

I just started a new job, as well, and work remotely, so Facebook allows me to connect with other team members.

But I don't use any of the applications.

Plus, I love looking at the profile photos of 20-something sweet young things on Facebook.
posted by KokuRyu at 6:59 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ballmer, flip-flopper.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 7:01 AM on October 25, 2007

Hmm... lack of social life, "play dates", "managing relationships" online, and checking out 20-somethings on-line... Someone get my my car keys, I think we need to head over to KokuRyu's house and conduct an intervention asap.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 7:03 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

There's already some serious creeping featurism going on w/Facebook, I agree. Every time I log in, there's 10 shitty applications waiting to be rejected. We'll see what Google has to offer soon.
posted by mek at 7:03 AM on October 25, 2007

other than for wasting time on all kinds of "define me define me" self-indulgent bullshit, what's the allure?

I log on and see what my friends are up to without having to contact them. If I want to I then can. Mostly it helps me almost effortlessly maintain loose connections that would otherwise have withered.

It might be that this has more value for me since the majority of my friends are currently an ocean and a few thousand miles of land away but I can easily envision similar use cases.
posted by srboisvert at 7:04 AM on October 25, 2007

would STILL think Facebook is an overrated example of a stupid genre of web sites.

and those darn kids are STILL on your lawn!

Endlessly complaining on how you think something is stupid will not do much for helping you understand it. Facebook is popular whether you get it or not.
posted by GuyZero at 7:08 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

Thing is a year ago, I knew literally nobody on facebook, my friends were on Myspace. Now a larger chunk of people I know are on there and MySpace is dead. These networks are very transportable, very quickly. So what is Microsoft buying, exactly?

Well, my feeling, from using both services, is that facebook is a lot 'sticker' then Myspace. Myspace was always crap, awful interface, ugly, etc.
posted by delmoi at 7:21 AM on October 25, 2007

Endlessly complaining on how you think something is stupid will not do much for helping you understand it.

I didn't say I didn't understand it (I have a close relative that works there, for crying out loud), nor do I deny it is popular. I even have an account that I play with from time to time.

It's still dumb.
posted by DU at 7:22 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook is here to stay.

I don't know of any site (other than Google, of course) that has penetrated this deeply and across this many age/cultural divides.

Facebook is the most popular photo sharing site on the internet. (more popular than flickr)

Facebook is changing the way people interact, it is changing the way that relationships are started, defined and ended.

Facebook has "personalized" email. It seems that folks are much more inclined to drop a quick note when there is a picture and a "mini-bio" there to remind them what their friend is all about.

Facebook is the first website that I have heard average people talk about in real life (i.e. overheard conversations in restaurants and while waiting in lines)

I don't buy the whole "glut of crappy apps ruining facebook" thing. The apps are essentially decorations that people put up in their "rooms". It is very easy to disable or ignore applications and requests for applications.

As evinced in this thread, it is now rather fashionable among certain circles to be "anti-facebook". That's fine, but guess what - your friends are on there, sharing pics and communicating with each other.
posted by davey_darling at 7:23 AM on October 25, 2007 [4 favorites]

Secondin srboisvert. If you are living overseas facebook the perfect way to keep in touch with old friends.
posted by afu at 7:25 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook is changing the way people interact, it is changing the way that relationships are started, defined and ended.

Oh, God here we go again. Another 1998 and another paradigm shift/destructive model/panacea/golden age for interactivity.

Based on the comments in the thread, I am now persuaded that others find some usefulness in Facebook, but I'll be convinced of its hegemony when I hear more than one person say, "xxx.com is the first website that I have heard average people talk about in real life".
posted by psmealey at 7:30 AM on October 25, 2007

Goatse.cx is the first website that I have ever heard average people talk about in real life.
posted by mek at 7:34 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

Oh, God here we go again. Another 1998 and another paradigm shift/destructive model/panacea/golden age for interactivity.

Really though, you have to admit that the level of technology available to the average person (cheap PC's, widely available broadband, digital cameras, wifi) makes my scenario much more likely to begin, and hold, than it was in 1998.
posted by davey_darling at 7:34 AM on October 25, 2007

Thank GAWD someone posted this to the front page. This is clearly Best of the Web, and this is information I never would have heard about from other sources (I mean, besides the front page of my local newspaper, CNN, etc.)
posted by Doohickie at 7:34 AM on October 25, 2007

I wonder if most the people bitching about Facebook weren't in college when it came out.

All the students at the high school I work at used it. Teachers use it to communicate with students. All my friends use it. When I use online dating forums, the first thing people link if their Facebook (or heaven forbid, myspace) link.
I live on the other side of the country from my homebase, and it's a lot easier to keep up with Facebook than anything else.
It's a generational thing.

For the <25 crowd, it's here to stay.
posted by jmd82 at 7:37 AM on October 25, 2007

I wonder if most the people bitching about Facebook weren't in college when it came out.

I wonder if most of the people gushing about Facebook are at that age when omgdidyouhearwhatjennysaid is the most important thing in their lives.
posted by DU at 7:43 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

you have to admit that the level of technology available to the average person makes my scenario much more likely to begin, and hold, than it was in 1998.

Just as it will be the case in 2016. I know these jumps seem incredibly important and interesting at the time they're happening, but these things obsolesce and are replaced so quickly, that when you look at your comment in a couple of years even, you're likely to feel pretty silly about it. Not a criticism, this is exciting stuff, I guess. It's just nothing new.
posted by psmealey at 7:45 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook is for keeping track of your friends. With facebook, I can basically keep up with friends, and send them a note whenever I feel like. I don't need to worry about keeping up to date with email addresses or whatever, assuming people keep using facebook.

That only works if your friends are on facebook too. Heck, half my friends don't even use email very often or not at all.
posted by octothorpe at 7:48 AM on October 25, 2007

That only works if your friends are on facebook too.

Well, that's kind of what is being said above... in colleges these days, they have like 90% of students signed up to Facebook. So if you're in college, your friends are signed up. And once they leave college, they'll presumably use Facebook to keep in touch with people; there would be no reason to switch to something like Classmates.
posted by smackfu at 7:57 AM on October 25, 2007

they'll presumably use Facebook to keep in touch with people; there would be no reason to switch to something like Classmates.

Until Facebook fills with marketers, spambots and pornprofiles and all the cool kids start switching to FriendUlatR3.0 which uses advanced APAX technology.


For the <2>

Maybe, but then they'll be over 25, and using Facebook while the new under 25 crowd starts using the new social networking website that lets them connect to other people with the iJack interface and doesn't let those over the hill 25-year-olds join.
posted by drezdn at 8:10 AM on October 25, 2007

Damn-it, borked my tags...
posted by drezdn at 8:10 AM on October 25, 2007

I’m trying to “get” Facebook, I really am. Maybe it’s because I don’t have enough real-life friends to make it worthwhile. So far I’ve added my high-school age nephew and college-age niece and all it’s done is made me depressed at how much less social I was when I was their age.

What we need is something like Facebook for us 30-somethings and older. Friends could post updates like “dropped the mortgage in the mail today!” or “Sciatica is acting up again!”
posted by bondcliff at 8:11 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

In short, paradigms shift, they just shift far quicker now.
posted by drezdn at 8:11 AM on October 25, 2007

This is pretty much a rehash of a comment I posted before, but it still holds true because people don't understand how outstandingly useful Facebook can be.

I'm running the Ball State game of Humans vs Zombies. We just got started, and the game's going well. I created flyers, posted them up all over campus, encouraged people to spread the word about the game, met with the Residence Life people to hammer out a mutually agreeable ruleset, that sort of thing. I wanted to have a way to know how many people are interested in Humans vs Zombies and to be able to get in touch with all of them.

I could, I suppose, pay for hosting and build a website where people could put in their email addresses and have to deal with taking care of it and so forth. But screw all that time and expense and effort. I just created a Facebook group and now I have a discussion forum and membership list. And since everyone on campus has a Facebook account, anyone who wants in can just join the group, and I can discuss issues with players and they can talk to each other. They've even started their own Facebook groups where people in particular dorms can work together to fight off the zombies.

None of this would have been possible without Facebook- without it, we'd have many fewer people and the community around Humans vs Zombies wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is, and the game certainly wouldn't be as populous as it has become.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:13 AM on October 25, 2007

I live in San Diego, and people I hadn't heard from in years came out of the woodwork to wish me well the last couple of days. I also updated my Facebook status to let people know that I was evacuated but ok, and then again when I got home. It has it's uses, even if this is a very specific instance.
posted by natabat at 8:15 AM on October 25, 2007

The thing people seem to overlook with social networking sites is that while it makes it easier to contact the people in the network, and talk to people in the network, it makes it harder to reach beyond the network.

I know people who have essentially replaced their email address with their myspace account. If you don't use myspace you can't send them a message.

There are bands that committed to using myspace instead of creating a website. As people leave myspace, the band loses the contacts they once had.

Facebook is extremely useful if you want to connect with the people who use Facebook, but in a way it creates a wall around its corner of the internet.
posted by drezdn at 8:18 AM on October 25, 2007 [3 favorites]

One frustrating thing about being a thirtysomething Facebook user is that I graduated from college before Facebook was around as well as before my college continued to provide e-mail addresses for alumni. So there's a Washington College alumni network I could join, but can't because I don't have a washcoll.edu address anymore.

Have to agree with the comment above about irrelevant/replaceable. Spot on.
posted by emelenjr at 8:21 AM on October 25, 2007

Is there anyone, anyone at all, under the age of 28 who doesn't "get" Facebook? It's appeal is fairly obvious to anyone in a certain demographic. If you're 40 years old and none of your friends are on Facebook and you log in and can't figure out what the hell to do, don't be too surprised if you're still utterly mystified by it.
posted by decoherence at 8:26 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook is like blogging for people who don't know what a blog is. That's not (necessarily) a bad thing.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 8:29 AM on October 25, 2007

Here's comments similar to the pro-facebook ones from last year discussing a different site.

As per swearing by MySpace... it's a pretty damn useful tool for staying in contact with friends. Especially when you're 7000 miles away. For all it's ugliness, I still have 150 [real] friends who use it and check it regularly. 4/5 of my relevant email from them comes from MySpace.

Throwing up a couple bulletins/event invitations to announce a party or mass event is so much easier than sitting on the phone for an hour calling everyone.
posted by trinarian at 1:21 PM on August 23 [+] [!]

i don't get the anti-myspace thing myself...i'm 39 and use it, and it's a great platform for being connected with distant family and friends...and i have friends in bands, so it's neat to see them get some increased exposure...there's not always time to email everybody, and you're not always in the mood for it, so it's cool to be able to go check out somebody's page and catch up, or update your own, at your convenience...and the structure of it makes for some consistency, and doesn't require coding--and why should it? you don't have to become a telephone operator/technician to give someone a call...why does someone not in the industry need to learn html or...ugh...design (considering that no matter how much time they put into that, there's gonna be those people with special eyes who will find something to insult about it)?


Facebook threads are the new Myspace threads, or your favorite social networking site sucks.

Facebook does have Scrabble though.
posted by drezdn at 8:29 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

And once they leave college, they'll presumably use Facebook to keep in touch with people; there would be no reason to switch to something like Classmates.

In fact, facebook vs. classmates is Hitler vs. Stalin, circa 1942. Only one side can survive, and I don't understand the appeal of either, and followers of both will eventually be forced to eat rats caught in the rubble for survival.

Well, maybe the analogy breaks down there at the end.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:30 AM on October 25, 2007 [4 favorites]

Another thing: I graduated from an East Coast private college in 2004, and hardly anyone I know is on, or has ever been on, MySpace. Facebook predominates by a huge margin. While I recognize the tremendous popularity of MySpace, I'm not sure who's actually on it, and why their social world has thus far failed to overlap with mine in any way. I'd be interested in seeing a demographic breakdown of Facebook users vs. MySpace users, and what draws each type to which.
posted by decoherence at 8:31 AM on October 25, 2007

Is there anyone, anyone at all, under the age of 28 who doesn't "get" Facebook?

We "get" it just fine. We just don't "like" it.
posted by enn at 8:35 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

I graduated from an East Coast private college in 2004

The year you graduated is a key fact. I graduated in 2005, and facebook was exclusive to college students until my senior year or the year after I graduated. Either way, youngens still wanted in on the action so they turned to MySpace whereas most college students stuck to Facebook. So if you graduated in 2004, most people on MySpace would have been too young for your crowd.
posted by jmd82 at 8:41 AM on October 25, 2007

Judging from this thread, Facebook is only useful for keeping tabs on friends who are at least 1000 miles away.

Seriously, there's a lot of "the over 30 set won't get it, but the under 25 set will."

Here's the problem with that. The under 25 set will turn 30. It's the reverse of the old Steve Jobs quote. When he was told that old people don't "get" personal computers, he simply responded "old people die".

In this case, young people get older. Facebook is really useful for a certain lifestyle that peaks in college. Lots of people you want to meet, lots of downtime, lots of socializing.

The reason the over 30 set "doesn't get it" is because our lives are not structured the way they were in college. I definitely see how facebook would have been useful to me in college, but I don't see how I would use it now. If you have a full time job, your friends know exactly what you are doing all day - working. And your circle of friends and acquaintences that you want to keep tabs on contracts considerably at this stage of your life. More importantly, you are more reluctant to share what you are doing with the world, because your free time is so much more precious, so you want more control over it, and you don't want to spend an hour of it every night checking up on people.

If you are married and/or have young kids, facebook is useless. There is no time for something as high maintenance as that.

For the older thirty set, sites like mefi, netflix, craigslist, are more useful because the information/entertainment you want is delivered considerably more efficiently than the alternatives. For the given social circle of a married or seriously involved person in their thirties, the efficiencies that facebook brings to socializing simply are not that important, because there isn't nearly that much of it going on that needs to be rendered made more efficient.

Of course, there are always exceptions, and there are people in their thirties who do use it. But by and large I think this is the case, though I haven't seen any data one way or the other.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:48 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

I log on and see what my friends are up to
Facebook is for keeping track of your friends
It's a good way to stay in touch with old friends

Facebook sounds exhausting. Thank goodness I don't have any friends.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:49 AM on October 25, 2007

Also, if you want to compare the relative importance of youtube and facebook, lets compare how many internet links outside of youtube go to you tube, and how many outside of facebook go to facebook.

Youtube added video to the internet in a way that video could be treated as a webpage (rather than as a file). Youtube made the internet larger. Facebook has enriched a small part of the internet, but the effect of facebook is not as disruptive, and hence not as important. Just my $0.02.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:51 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

Well, maybe the analogy breaks down there at the end.

Not necessarily. Have you SEEN Friendster lately?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:57 AM on October 25, 2007

If you are married and/or have young kids, facebook is useless.

Most people who are married and have kids today don't have lots of friends who are on Facebook. It's tough to say that if they did, they'd still find it useless.

What I imagine happening is that people who are in their early 20's today, as they get older, will use sites like Facebook less as virtual social hubs and more as they would Rolodexes or alumni updates: a way to keep track of friends' contact info, as well as keeping tabs on the general contours of their lives. Not what they're doing on Friday night, but what industry they're working in, or where they're currently in grad school. They won't spend hours on it as they do now, or update their profiles constantly, but it'll continue to serve a useful purpose.
posted by decoherence at 8:57 AM on October 25, 2007

Judging from this thread, Facebook is only useful for keeping tabs on friends who are at least 1000 miles away.

It's also tremendously helpful for organising things when your target audience overlaps nearly 100% with people who use Facebook. Like I say, my HvZ game would have been tiny without Facebook.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:59 AM on October 25, 2007

Pastabagel writes "If you are married and/or have young kids, facebook is useless. There is no time for something as high maintenance as that."

My married-with-two-infants relatives use it and love it: they're not keen on the idea of putting up naked bath photos on flickr, but they can easily share them friends-only on facebook. I guess, again, this is only useful because our family and friends are spread across the world, but my whole social group is all spread all over the world. I don't know anyone who doesn't have at least one friend who lives in another country. And it's not like that's going to magically change when we hit 30, we're more likely to spread out further and rely even more on facebook to keep in touch. While I am open to the idea of facebook being replaced, I find it hard to believe that it will simply disappear.
posted by jacalata at 9:03 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook was great stalking girls I'd like to ball over, but after college and ensuing horniness subsided, so did its usefulness. That is not to say I don't think it is still marginally useful. I have found a really, really weird trend on Facebook:

(1) Friend's who are by all definitions elite, with friends in the Carlyle Group and New England prep schools I haven't even heard of use it. These are people in their 30s and at the apex of their career. We can debate why they use it, but they use it as much as anyone else and are a great demographic to have. I have a feeling it is at least on a subliminal level, so they can show in one profile that they went to Andover->Harvard->Sequoia Capital. Talk about obnoxious, but usually their friends are very spread out geographically and this is a better way to keep in contact via pictures, events, etc.

(2) Artistic friends who send me updates on whatever performance they're in or whatever "pass the hat" type thing is going on at the music hall. They also have a lot of transient friends, so it is easy to keep track of the guy at the gallery who is showing his piece and is originally from Philadelphia, you know the one guy who was sort of bald.

I've politely asked that communication be done via GMail, as I no longer maintain my Facebook page. No beans. GMail and similar apps are just too impersonal. Something about Facebook just seems more real, more intimate.

And coming back to the two demographics I noticed use it in the post-college age group, while completely anecdotal, are the two types of demographics that keep communities alive. We can get into a sociological debate as to why this is, but that's not really the point.

I've seen a lot of networking sites come and go, and this is the first time people have been proud to talk about being "on the Facebook," or similar. I've even been told by friends of the former group that Facebook is used extensively for professional networking, and seeing as how there is no short of aspirational college graduates, this could be very self-perpetuating. But I am just cynical about social networking in general.
posted by geoff. at 9:18 AM on October 25, 2007

The technology isn't the asset. The user base is.
posted by Artw at 9:19 AM on October 25, 2007

Memories of the rise and fall of Geocities, Tripod and Friendster, among others.
posted by ericb at 9:19 AM on October 25, 2007

If you are married and/or have young kids, facebook is useless.

Well, that would be me I guess, and a fair chunk of my freinds on it.

Facebook is only useful for keeping tabs on friends who are at least 1000 miles away.

Well, that would be a big chunk of my freinds.

TBH I've only really been messing around with it for a while, but somehow it's kept me coming back in a way that other social networking sites haven't.
posted by Artw at 9:23 AM on October 25, 2007

DU said: I didn't say I didn't understand it...It's still dumb.

Would you like me to stop using it? Is that your point?
posted by mullacc at 9:23 AM on October 25, 2007

geoff, you bring up some good points.


While I am open to the idea of Facebook being replaced, I find it hard to believe that it will simply disappear.

I'll agree with this, but there are people who still use Friendster, there are people who still use AOL, there are (checks to make sure this is possible) people who still search the web using altavista. It's also entirely possible that there are still people who view the web in Lynx.

Among my "peers" (28-year-olds), most of us got into livejournal and then myspace. Many people I know still post to livejournal, but not as much as they used to (I think it's slowly rotting). Most people are still using myspace but the frustration with it has grown immensely as spambots have replaced real users. Personally, I stopped using myspace 3-5 months ago. I've had a facebook profile since I went back to school for a semester 2 years ago, but none of my peers were on it.

What I'd really like is open social networking, ie. you don't have to convince your friends to join the site to view your posts. Say, people can view my page on Facebook if they have an approved OpenID instead of a facebook account.

This would allow me things I can't currently do like read friends-only livejournal posts in google reader.
posted by drezdn at 9:28 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook music video that my nephew's friends put together.
posted by ericb at 9:32 AM on October 25, 2007

There was a large (almost total) surge of joiners this year in my late twenties circle of friends and acquaintances. Apparently the fastest growing demographic is the 25 and over age group. Its tendrils are spreading, how far they will go I don't know. Personally, one of my favourite things about Facebook is the ability it's given me to reestablish connections with old friends. That, by itself, has been pretty darn cool.
posted by Onanist at 9:34 AM on October 25, 2007

Geoff, interesting what you say about the sociology of these sites. I wouldn't discount the effect of Faceboook's having been started at Harvard, and its initial user base comprising mostly students at elite schools. Perhaps this is why you see many of those same types on it today. There was (and is) a similar effect on MySpace; it was started (I believe) by indie kids in LA, and now it seems like everyone on it is cast from the same vaguely hipsterish mold.
posted by decoherence at 9:37 AM on October 25, 2007

One of my artistic friends is in a band. Whenever he has a show I get an evite, a myspace-vite & a facebook-vite.

What facebook is is a platform for "social" computing. The stuff that Pope Guilty says would be "impossible" without facebook is basically a mailing list. However there are technical/business reasons why an open standard email can't innovate as fast as a closed system like facebook.

So Pope Guilty makes a mailing list. This has been possible, even for norms for literally thousands of years. (I kid.) What is not easily or smoothly possible using your email client is to grab a subset of those people & split a group (I guess just Zombies or something), link the group to file sharing, see cute pictures etc. It's like sharepoint for people without jobs.

So in addition to their hugely valuable stable of people they have a lot of technology.

In the long term though, do we really think we're going to re-AOL-ify the internet? Will future innovators in terms of applications be content to work under a facebook? To make facebook a sort of Microsoft of social networking?

Or will they want to work in a more neutral setting?

Can the walled gardens stay far enough ahead of the copiers & the standards?
posted by Wood at 9:39 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Everyone here seems to completely miss the value of Facebook.

It is, obviously, valuable to users. That's been pointed out.

The real value, and the reason that it may indeed be worth $15B, is that it is the largest single dataset ever produced on the habits of 15-25 year olds. Every friend, every connection, every update, every favorite band, every TV show, all their lives, contained and digitized for data mining fun.

The Facebook database is worth far, far more than the YouTube database, which is why Facebook is worth more. It isn't the technology, it's the data.
posted by griffey at 9:44 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]

Well said Wood.
posted by drezdn at 9:45 AM on October 25, 2007

The Facebook database is worth far, far more than the YouTube database, which is why Facebook is worth more. It isn't the technology, it's the data.

This is an interesting take, especially considering that Microsoft is moving to become more involved in advertising.

Facebook data is only useful as long as it remains number 1 though.
posted by drezdn at 9:46 AM on October 25, 2007

The Facebook database is worth far, far more than the YouTube database, which is why Facebook is worth more. It isn't the technology, it's the data.

That half-life of that data is pretty short though. If Facebook stops being hip and the youth migrate to the next big thing, that data will be useless in short time.
posted by octothorpe at 9:53 AM on October 25, 2007

Or what drezdn said.
posted by octothorpe at 9:53 AM on October 25, 2007

Facebook has changed social interaction phenomenally. Parties are more organized. If I met someone at a party six months ago I don't lose touch with them... I'm still their friend. This has done GREAT and TERRIBLE things for my social life.
posted by niccolo at 10:00 AM on October 25, 2007

Emelenjr, I had that same problem. I'm now in a different country than everyone I went to college with, also, and wanted to be able to keep up with the network, so I emailed my alumni office and they set me up with an alumni university email that worked for the facebook network. This was a UK university, but you should try it anyway- maybe your school does the same thing.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 10:01 AM on October 25, 2007

What we need is something like Facebook for us 30-somethings and older.

We have it. It's called Facebook. Half of the people on my friends list are over 30. Several are over 40 and one is nearly 60. Despite the fact that most of Facebook's users are in their teens and 20s, there's nothing exclusionary about the site.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 10:08 AM on October 25, 2007

Have a look at their 5 year chart, a pitiful $5 increase over that time period. You'd earn more money keeping your cash in the mattress.

Actually, MSFT paid out about $4.50 in dividends over the last 5 years (including a $3.08 special dividend) for a return of 16.6%, added to the 20.65% share appreciation for a total return of 37.2%, or an average of 7.44% a year. Not too shabby for a stable, mature, blue-chip tech company.
posted by loquax at 10:25 AM on October 25, 2007

So this Facebook is the new Livejournal Myspace Friendster?

This, too, shall pass. Hell, a lot of my friends are still on Livejournal. I guess I come from the subset of Early Adopters who are lazy.
posted by chimaera at 10:27 AM on October 25, 2007

I signed up to both half so nobody would steal my name there, and half so people could find me on the off chance I really want to talk to someone I haven't talked to in a while.

I wonder how many users did the exact same thing? Now open social networking might actually be useful. I don't like people enough to put any energy into maintaining separate walled-garden accounts.
posted by Skorgu at 10:27 AM on October 25, 2007

I will say this about Facebook: the status updates function completely kills the idea of Twitter before it really even got started. If you want to talk about stupid/irrelevant/disposable internet applications that are all hype and no substance, look no further than Twitter.
posted by psmealey at 10:30 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Now open social networking might actually be useful. I don't like people enough to put any energy into maintaining separate walled-garden accounts.
I thought about something like that -- an Open ID-style social network. The thing is, the business plans of most of the sites that it would really need to take off are predicated on the value of the walled-garden data. So you'd not only need the open ID, you'd need the open facebook, the open Flickr, the open YouTube and so on.

psmealey: Twitter is an SMS app to me, which gives it much more value than Facebook's.
posted by bonaldi at 10:32 AM on October 25, 2007

Anecdotal evidence alert: I was just chatting to my still-in-college coworker who was just talking about how she hates hates hates facebook. I'll attribute her vitriol to some misplaced snobbery—something I'd be guilty of as well, to be sure—but it does suggest to me how fickle that demographic is.

Some thoughts that I wanted to jot down: Facebook's valuation is on pretty shaky ground, I think. Yeah, the demographic information is important, but that information's value is only good as long as it can be kept updated. If Facebook starts missing out on some of this information because people are flocking to a new site, the value of their information will drop sharply.

Also, I suspect that market saturation is probably the most overvalued commodity as far as web applications go. Considering that there is no cost for someone to set up parallel accounts on different services, a fickle userbase can easily move from one service to a newer, better service quickly. I think that Zuckerberg and co. know this on some level, which may have been the catalyst for the Facebook app platform—it's a way of avoiding Friendster's fate.

This is all armchair analysis, though. I'd love to hear the thoughts of someone with a business background regarding the rationale behind Facebook's valuation.
posted by Weebot at 10:50 AM on October 25, 2007

Twitter is an SMS app to me, which gives it much more value than Facebook's.

I haven't delved too deeply into it yet, but I thought you could configure Facebook status updates for SMS as well. No? Well, if not yet, then I'm sure it's coming.
posted by psmealey at 10:53 AM on October 25, 2007

Pastabagel is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:55 AM on October 25, 2007

I'd love to hear the thoughts of someone with a business background regarding the rationale behind Facebook's valuation.

It's pretty much a WAG (wild ass guess). You can't support that sort of valuation with any set of multiples of revenue, cashflow or net income. I think the reasons are those stated above:

* MSFT's stated strategic focus is on Internet Advertising, and this gives them access to a very net savvy and valuable demographic.
* MSFT management under analysis (and shareholder pressure) to get a high-profile "win" vs. Google.
* MSFT needing to divert attention from Vista, which has been an unqualified flop.
posted by psmealey at 10:57 AM on October 25, 2007

I like Vista.
posted by smackfu at 11:16 AM on October 25, 2007

Didn't we just have this conversation about MySpace?

Social networking sites seem to be locked in a cycle of acquiring a lot of users quickly, then having those users start defecting to another platform while some die-hards stay till the bitter end.

"The Kids" (tm) will, probably in the next 2 years, go somewhere else, so the new injection of users stops on Facebook, and existing users start defecting for the new popular place.

My prediction: the "next big thing" will be a MySpace/Facebook targeted for the over 50 crowd.

Make it useful, and make it stick, and that will become a huge site.

Marketers are starting to realize that the baby boomers are not going to retire like their parents did. The boomers are not going to squirrel every penny away and live like paupers trying to maximize their children's inheritance. The boomers are going to spend, spend, spend.

The 50-65 age group is going to become every bit as important as the 18-24 group within the next 10 years.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:18 AM on October 25, 2007

Just for kicks, here is the discounted cash flow valuation that Yahoo! did on Facebook back in 2006 to come up with a valuation in $1.6 billion range.

Looks like there may be some more money coming in at MSFT's valuation.
posted by mullacc at 11:27 AM on October 25, 2007

My prediction: the "next big thing" will be a MySpace/ Facebook targeted for the over 50 crowd.

Eons, founded by Monster.com's Jeff Taylor, is just one ("MySpace for baby boomers") of many focused on that demographic. Despite its $32 million in funding, Eons is having a bit of a bumpy ride right now.

I know of two others targetting this same age group that are "in stealth" right now.
posted by ericb at 11:27 AM on October 25, 2007

the "next big thing"

Hold on to your lunch: it's ASmallWorld.net, an an invitation-only social networking site catering to the super rich.
posted by psmealey at 11:31 AM on October 25, 2007

Other "boomer" social networking sites: BoomJ, eGenerations and TeeBeeDee.

The AARP announced that it will be adding social networking to their website.
posted by ericb at 11:42 AM on October 25, 2007

I use it to play Scrabble with my sister, but the fear that some long-lost school friend or relative will find me through her gnaws at me incessantly, like a rat with tapeworm.
If I liked them, they wouldn't be long-lost.

/Wet blanket
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:42 AM on October 25, 2007

Admittedly, there is an apples-orange problem in this question, but I was thinking about it and wondering what lessons Facebook could take from a site like craigslist regarding staying power.

Granted, craigslist is hardly as ambitious as Facebook, but the fact that that site has been around in a relatively stable form for a while now has to contain some sort of lesson for other Web 2.0 internet entrepreneurs (though I guess craigslist is more a precursor to Web 2.0 than 2.0 proper, whatever that means.)
posted by Weebot at 11:50 AM on October 25, 2007

There's also gather for the older NPR set.

Ynoxas, that's an interesting point about age. I think you're right, as television started rediscovering the older viewers after drug companies started looking to spend their money.
posted by drezdn at 11:51 AM on October 25, 2007

A lot of people here need to get accounts on Facebook and update their status to "is talking out of their ass"
posted by srboisvert at 12:06 PM on October 25, 2007

I'd love to hear the thoughts of someone with a business background regarding the rationale behind Facebook's valuation.

Standard valuation such as discounted cash flow and other textbooks means of determining a companies value will not work for something like the Facebook. It'll give general figures, but nothing approaching a science. Why?

Because it is worth more to a Microsoft/Google/Yahoo than it would be to a PE group. The trend is to deliver advertising to targeted consumers, which advertisers love. Google has algorithms which apply ads to sites and search results. These could very easily apply and be more effective on a site where the users voluntarily give up information on themselves.

Who wouldn't love a bidding war between SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch on advertising their new low-carb alcoholic drink whenever college students post an event for a party? Or image recognition to find a Bud Light can in a picture and place a supporting ad reinforcing that the fun happened because of Bud Light.

Or maybe you put your favorite book is "White Noise" and when Don Delillo puts out a new book you see an ad in the sidebar about it. More likely someone Don Delillo like releases a book and you get a targeted ad that says "Don Delillo's successor releases a new book!" but perhaps in a more subtle marketed manner.

Facebook is a very, very powerful platform because young people have discretionary income and don't have fixed monthly costs to worry about.

The concept is really larger than Facebook itself, and major technology companies are realizing it. Look at what happened with Google TV ads, compared to what was previously available to advertisers. Google is recording audiences down to the second and how they watch television. You already see the fake ads during high profile events like baseball playoffs. I am certain that the Taco Bell ad behind home plate was inserted in real-time (some replays showed a blank spot where the ad should be). I had a professor in business school 5 years ago who was raving about inserting ads into sporting events.

In theory this should really benefit everyone by taking out the inefficiencies of huge ad budgets that target everyone. I'd love to watch Lost with one or two highly targeted commercials (Chipotle near you is open after the show!), etc. Facebook is rather irrelevant as far as it being easily duplicated. MS could easily create a clone of the site, but not the users and all the information they bring along.

When asked why Mandelbrot studied cotton prices, he replied, "because of the data!" It went back several hundred years. Google wants to be able to control all advertising everywhere, and be a clearinghouse or mechanism that enables advertisers to target who they want with specific campaigns regardless of the platform. So does MS, but they are way behind. Who wouldn't like to extend this from search results to a web site with crazy amounts of page views with a purchase happy demographic?

Applebee's ad budget was somewhere around $110 million a year if I remember what I read today correctly. Given such large numbers, the multi-billion dollar valuation of the Facebook is not obscene. The uncertainty is why this hasn't gone down. That and I think Zuckberger believes that he has the next Google/MS on his hands. I don't think his product is as unique and solid as Google/MS and I would have personally sold at $1billion.

Sure he could be having a multi-billion dollar company in the near future or be the next bust, which is the nature of business. But $1 billion in the bank, playing it conservative, should allow him to live very comfortably off the monthly returns alone. Of course I know enough dot-com millionaires who played the game just like Marky Mark here and lost it all. I'd much rather take the money and live with a cook and few servants in a large house in Costa Rica, screwing Romanian models on my yacht and reading all day. But I guess that's why MS isn't trying to negotiate with me.

Also add in the subtext that Google and MS are fighting each other out for relevancy. To give an example: I've worked for enough small to mid-size businesses to know that IT costs are huge. Not only for the hardware but for MS Exchange architecture. A google app for $2000 with no license or recurring fees (payed for by text ads) would look very, very attractive.
posted by geoff. at 12:06 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

[datapoint] I'm in my 30s, married with a small kid, and I've been on it three weeks. I like it; it's much more compelling than Friendster ever was. I'm not using it for networking or making new pals -- just keeping up with the scattered friends I have already.

Not all of my friends are on it, but I predict a lot more will join in the next few months -- it's really picking up critical mass among people in their 30s. My current friend list is a hodgepodge of close friends and acquaintances from various eras of my life; i like seeing them all collected together, getting random updates and having quick conversations. I know it's not "real" socializing, but it makes me feel more connected (a good thing when you've got a kid and are often stuck at home). And the next time I see these people in real life, we'll be more up on what's happening with each other.

And Scrabulous is awesome. It has a slo-mo chat box that you can use with your slo-mo game ... I never got into IMing, but I get its appeal now for lazy conversationalists like me.

It's not replacing email or anything for me; it's just a new thing, and spending 10 minutes a day on it is more fun & personal than 10 minutes of random Web surfing. Like anything, its appeal is just what you make of it.
posted by lisa g at 12:23 PM on October 25, 2007

geoff.: I'm down with the idea of targeted ads as a very lucrative revenue stream. I think the meteoric rise of Adsense proves that. And I'm guessing that the high valuation has as much to do with the Google-Microsoft rivalry and Zuckerberg's previously stated reluctance (genuine or not) as it does with Facebook's real value.

What gives me pause with the $15 billion number is the idea that Facebook is a stable platform for ad delivery and/or data mining. The information stream seems too volatile and unreliable to be worth that much, though that isn't to say it's worthless. Far from it. You say that the uncertainty is why the amount hasn't gone down, but I would think that the uncertainty would be a reason why the amount would have remained more grounded.

I guess it doesn't really matter though, since even if we throw around that $15 billion number, Microsoft only dropped $240 million. Even in a worst-case-scenario, that doesn't amount to much when compared to what Microsoft brings in.
posted by Weebot at 1:00 PM on October 25, 2007

I have just updated my Facebook status per srboisvert's instructions. I suggest the rest of you motherfuckers do the same.
posted by psmealey at 1:31 PM on October 25, 2007

Fortune Magazine: Don't Take Deal at Face(book) Value: "Thave to be reasons beyond price and greed for Facebook's decision to go with Microsoft."
posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on October 25, 2007

You say that the uncertainty is why the amount hasn't gone down, but I would think that the uncertainty would be a reason why the amount would have remained more grounded.

Oh, I mean that uncertainty is why any deal has not been completed (e.g., 'deal gone down'). MS has a lot of cash on hand. I would not be surprised if Google backs off and tries to do soft integration (such as friend finder) and let MS win this won. MS is good at acquiring companies and finishing deals, which Google is more or less in unproven or very new territory.

Rumor has it, at least from a connected friend at a relevant law firm, that Zucks is sort of immature and hard to deal with. The underlying subtext was that he was sort of lazy, not in a you or I kind of lazy, but lazy for someone who is dealing with 110% driven M&A executives and partners at law firms.

In any case I don't think he's as valuable as the Google guys or even the Gates' team, in that he just sort of got really, really lucky. Not that everyone involved at that level is incredibly lucky, they usually are lucky and incredibly intelligent. I think he may, at some level, realize that and knows that if he gives up any ownership he is easily replaceable.
posted by geoff. at 1:43 PM on October 25, 2007

Facebook is fantastic for staying in touch with acquaintances you no longer care about.
posted by rusty at 1:54 PM on October 25, 2007

Facebook is fantastic for staying in touch with acquaintances you no longer care about.

Amen to that. I recently got back in touch with a couple of people that I haven't spoken to since high school 20 years ago. And by getting in touch, I mean, I got emails from Facebook indicating if I wanted to approve them as friends. So, I said yes, and there they sit. Still haven't done anything to catch up with them though, but there they are, sitting in my friends list alongside people I actually care about and worked very hard to keep up with over these past few decades. Life is funny.

On the other hand, I wish Facebook had been around when I was in college. It would have been AWESOME. It would have made my hook up years even more complex and ridiculous than they already were...

No, come to think of it, I'm just as glad it wasn't around.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 2:19 PM on October 25, 2007

Facebook seems to be beating MiFi into submission in the massive timesink stakes at the moment.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:26 PM on October 25, 2007

I have never been to Facebook. Not once.
posted by tkchrist at 2:44 PM on October 25, 2007

Don't Take Deal at Face(book) Value: "Thave to be reasons beyond price and greed for Facebook's decision to go with Microsoft."

I wonder if this deal is more complicated than what was announced--perhaps there's an extensive agreement that gives Microsoft the right to handle all advertising on Facebook for a number of years (or to lockout Google et al). The 1.6% equity stake allows them to position it as minority investment but keeps it small enough to avoid disclosing the terms of a more comprehensive business arrangement. And for Facebook it gives Mark enough cash to make him wealthy now but, more importantly, it sets a stake in the ground for a future deal that would make him really wealthy.
posted by mullacc at 2:52 PM on October 25, 2007

Forbes: Facebook Rumors: Making Friends with More Investors

"Two hedge funds from New York have apparently jumped into the Facebook deal.We've got our ear to the ground to figure out who it is but each put in about $250 million--for $500 million total--at the same valuation as Microsoft Corp."

posted by ericb at 3:46 PM on October 25, 2007

The Bottom Line on Facebook's Ad Future

"Now that Microsoft has anted up, analysts are remarkably sunny about an ad initiative that hasn't even launched or been fully explained yet."

posted by ericb at 3:48 PM on October 25, 2007

WSJ: Facebook Looks to Hedge Funds, Private Equity for More Cash.
posted by ericb at 3:50 PM on October 25, 2007

I finally made an account there a few weeks ago to check this shit out -- never used any of the social service sites -- and I've been a little surprised at how many people I hadn't seen in 5 or 10 or 15 years, people I met on the road in Europe or Asia or somewhere during my wanderdecade, suddenly appeared on my radar, checking to see if I was me or not.

That's been pretty cool.

recently got back in touch with a couple of people that I haven't spoken to since high school 20 years ago. And by getting in touch, I mean, I got emails from Facebook indicating if I wanted to approve them as friends. So, I said yes, and there they sit. Still haven't done anything to catch up with them though, but there they are, sitting in my friends list alongside people I actually care about and worked very hard to keep up with over these past few decades. Life is funny.

Heh. Yeah, also this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:25 PM on October 25, 2007

Ho ho! Google does the open social network
posted by bonaldi at 1:18 PM on October 31, 2007