103 replies to this topic

[Kyelo]

If Facebook is going to go away it is not in the immediate future until there is a viable alternative, that might be Google+. I have G+ but only have one contact and haven't looked at it since the day I set it up. Until loads of people use it I won't be switching any time soon.

[wee_insomniac]

http://www.nme.com/news/bono/61841

Bono believes in Facebook, and so must we... All worship Facebook!

[Katster]

eFestivals, on 05 February 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Thank you for proving the major flaw of facebook for me.

It's not really a major flaw when you can just ask people their names as I have done here.

Or did you mean something else?

[Katster]

eFestivals, on 03 February 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

You said I'm shouting at the world and no one is listening. I've given you the fact that 850,000 people are listening.

Facebook is in the main either people shouting at the world with no one listening, or *people talking a lot but not saying anything worthwhile.
(* there's a missed opportunity to abuse a Talking Heads lyric there )

Specialist sites such as this one have something to say, and an audience that wants to hear it. A large part of that audience are those who don't and won't do facebook or similar things to that.

This place has died more of a death than facebook has.

[Ed209]

I don't think facebook has peaked yet. Maybe in the western world, but its expansion in the developing world is rampant at present and will continue to be for a sometime.

[paulevs]

Pogues Mcgogues, on 01 February 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

If you're refering to my replies to Phil Adcroft...they are in jest. He makes jokes to me regarding political matters. In any case, I am supportive of that petition and Phil's points.

Too funny!

[eFestivals]

Katster, on 05 February 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

It's not really a major flaw when you can just ask people their names as I have done here.

Or did you mean something else?

I meant something else - that all your friends are not on facebook, so facebook doesn't work for contacting your friends.

[eFestivals]

Katster, on 05 February 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

This place has died more of a death than facebook has.

Yep, it's certainly been affected by facebook. But it's also the case that it's less affected now than it was a year ago.

Facebook works for talking bollocks. It works far less well if you want to know something useful.

[kaosmark2]

eFestivals, on 06 February 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Facebook works for talking bollocks. It works far less well if you want to know something useful.

For some things (in my case student society updates), the most reliable source of information is facebook.

Obviously only true for a few, but there are some people who prefer using facebook to contact, including about useful things, and if they're in charge of releasing information you want, facebook can be almost essential.

[eFestivals]

kaosmark2, on 06 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

For some things (in my case student society updates), the most reliable source of information is facebook.

Obviously only true for a few, but there are some people who prefer using facebook to contact, including about useful things, and if they're in charge of releasing information you want, facebook can be almost essential.

that's just lazy, only releasing info to facebook users.

It gets to show how far some have been sucked into it, but again outlines where it will always fail.

[kaosmark2]

eFestivals, on 06 February 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

that's just lazy, only releasing info to facebook users.

It gets to show how far some have been sucked into it, but again outlines where it will always fail.

Yup. The most important stuff is done by e-mail as well, but to get every update, I have to use facebook.

Of course, if it's considered the 'lazy' option, that suggests some degree of usability.

[eFestivals]

kaosmark2, on 06 February 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Yup. The most important stuff is done by e-mail as well, but to get every update, I have to use facebook.

Of course, if it's considered the 'lazy' option, that suggests some degree of usability.

usability for the person publishing the info, not accessable or therefore usable by all those wanting the info (dependent on how things have been setup). Which is why it's lazy.

If facebook is going to replace the 'net then tens of thousands are wasting their time and will have to give up their day jobs. It's not a blindness to the world that has me rejecting that (im)possibility.

[kaosmark2]

eFestivals, on 06 February 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

usability for the person publishing the info, not accessable or therefore usable by all those wanting the info (dependent on how things have been setup). Which is why it's lazy.

If facebook is going to replace the 'net then tens of thousands are wasting their time and will have to give up their day jobs. It's not a blindness to the world that has me rejecting that (im)possibility.

Oh, I've agreed from the start. I just think it's going to be a lot slower to fade into meaninglessness than myspace, etc.

[eFestivals]

kaosmark2, on 06 February 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

I just think it's going to be a lot slower to fade into meaninglessness than myspace, etc.

it depends how you're meaning that.

Once it starts to properly fall then the arse will fall out of it no less quick than happened with MySpace.

The pertinant question is: when does it start that 'proper' fall? It's currently around its active user peak (if nothing else the float gives away that even those closely involved with Facebook believe that's the case), because many of those who have signed up have decided they don't like or want it for whatever reasons, but that's being balanced currently by other new users (kids growing up, people getting access to technology that they didn't previously have access to, etc).

I'd say that it's perhaps got two years of this sustained peak before it starts to fall by 10 or 20%, and then it'll stabalise around there for a while until such time as there's something else for the fashionistas to get into (and the sheep will surely  follow).

But its no less easy to second guess than the likes of MySpace was - and MySpace managed to sucker a very high profile and shrewd victim in Murdoch. With facebook the suckers are going to be Joe Public, but they won't be any less suckers.

[kaosmark2]

eFestivals, on 06 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

it depends how you're meaning that.

Once it starts to properly fall then the arse will fall out of it no less quick than happened with MySpace.

The pertinant question is: when does it start that 'proper' fall? It's currently around its active user peak (if nothing else the float gives away that even those closely involved with Facebook believe that's the case), because many of those who have signed up have decided they don't like or want it for whatever reasons, but that's being balanced currently by other new users (kids growing up, people getting access to technology that they didn't previously have access to, etc).

I'd say that it's perhaps got two years of this sustained peak before it starts to fall by 10 or 20%, and then it'll stabalise around there for a while until such time as there's something else for the fashionistas to get into (and the sheep will surely  follow).

But its no less easy to second guess than the likes of MySpace was - and MySpace managed to sucker a very high profile and shrewd victim in Murdoch. With facebook the suckers are going to be Joe Public, but they won't be any less suckers.

This is more what I was meaning. After its initial decline it'll stabilise for a bit rather than continue to fall at an accellerating rate.


When talking about suckers, I assume you're meaning share buyers?

[eFestivals]

kaosmark2, on 06 February 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

When talking about suckers, I assume you're meaning share buyers?

yeah. The banks, etc, who have funded it this far want their profit, and nows the time to get it from suckers, before facebook get found out as not being able to increase their profits to anything like the amount that would be needed to justify the fantasy valuation it has at the moment; it doesn't have the reach of google to ever be able to do what google has with its business model.

[kaosmark2]

eFestivals, on 06 February 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

yeah. The banks, etc, who have funded it this far want their profit, and nows the time to get it from suckers, before facebook get found out as not being able to increase their profits to anything like the amount that would be needed to justify the fantasy valuation it has at the moment; it doesn't have the reach of google to ever be able to do what google has with its business model.

Google started out with a basic feature and has just expanded and expanded carefully and brilliantly. There's been a lot of failed ventures (google wave, google plus, google buzz), but so many successful ones (chrome, android, maps, docs to a lesser extent).

Google collapsing would cause most people genuine problems. Facebook collapsing wouldn't.

[eFestivals]

kaosmark2, on 06 February 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Google started out with a basic feature and has just expanded and expanded carefully and brilliantly. There's been a lot of failed ventures (google wave, google plus, google buzz), but so many successful ones (chrome, android, maps, docs to a lesser extent).

more than their features is their commercial success, which is what I was getting at. By having become the hub of everyone's intenet use it gives them an incredible amount of data about every user, which they've then been able to exploit with their advertising stuff - and exploit not just on their own site but on loads of websites around the web.

Facebook is going to remain almost exclusively within facebook with its ads. There's a bit of scope to take it outside but in comparision with google it won't get beyond tiny with that side of things. So its income is limited, and it won't justify the fantasy price.

kaosmark2, on 06 February 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Google collapsing would cause most people genuine problems. Facebook collapsing wouldn't.

Spot on.

[kaosmark2]

eFestivals, on 06 February 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

more than their features is their commercial success, which is what I was getting at. By having become the hub of everyone's intenet use it gives them an incredible amount of data about every user, which they've then been able to exploit with their advertising stuff - and exploit not just on their own site but on loads of websites around the web.

Facebook is going to remain almost exclusively within facebook with its ads. There's a bit of scope to take it outside but in comparision with google it won't get beyond tiny with that side of things. So its income is limited, and it won't justify the fantasy price.

You mean how virtually every website that wants advertising revenue uses google ads?

Yep. Huge advantage, huge difference.

[windy_miller]

kaosmark2, on 05 February 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

This. I have a facebook account, but I don't add people. Anyone. I don't like facebook, but some of my friends want to contact me via facebook rather than elsewhere. If they do, OK, I'll put up with it, but I'd far far rather text/phone/e-mail. If someone wants to communicate with me via facebook, alright, but I won't do anything to encourage it.

Ultimately, I'm desperate for it to die, even though I use it nearly every day.

I had a rarely used facebook account with about 3 friends on it.  I created it to view some Glasto photos that my friend took.  Since then, the only reason I've ever had to log in was to do battle with Facebook's ever changing privacy settings.  I also discovered that one of my other friends kept tagging me in photos, and could find no way to stop her doing it.  I could removed the tags after she'd added them, but not prevent her tagging them first place.

Last week I decided I'd had enough and finally closed my account down.

Edited by windy_miller, 10 February 2012 - 03:11 PM.