The biggest Idiot on Facebook

[Ed209]

my maths is wrong because I've used pounds as being as the same value as dollars (as I've just realised).

But the "£3.16billion" you quote is merely the value of the shares that are being offered for sale, not the total valuation that's being put on facebook - that's around $80-100Bn (I've not actually read any news stories of what the valuation actually is since it's been officially announced, but all the pre stories had it in that range).

It's not 'members' that's of importance but unique visitors. In facebook's case just about all visitors are members, while it's different here.

[eFestivals]

Ahh.. ok. I thought $5billion was the valuation. That seemed a bit low

Didn't realise they were keeping $75billion worth of shares for themselves. $80billion is a fucking crazy amount

I heard on TV this morning that Mark Z will have something like 30% (I forget the exact amount) of the shareholding after this float.

The float is really about getting some money back into the pockets of the early private investors. There's some of the major banks (Goldman's, etc) which have already bought somewhere around £5Bn's worth of shares at a far lower total valuation - it's these guys who are going to make a killing.

The very fact that they want their quick return on investment gets to show that they think that Facebook's valuation has peaked now. If they believed it would peak a year from now they'd hold back for the further year.

[lost]

I actually believe theres some good value in tech currently, companies like intel or microsoft trading at PE's just over 10 and good dividends, Wouldn't put facebook in that bracket though.. I seem to remember freeserve being valued at £600 - £800 per user when it floated.

[fred quimby]

I see facebook being around for sometime (just watch it fad now) I think it has hit the social media at the right point, there are many more around but facebook is the one, as I say I remember certain people saying that google was a fad and wouldn't last as a search engine. Obviously it will be able to grow into new markets (hence the new injection of capital) and expand it's income.

Mark Z has always had 29% share in the company so nothing changes there. Will be interesting where he takes facebook now.

I see Neil mentions myspace as an example of failure but I think they just didn't hit the smartphone wave (yes I know Neil hates them to) as facebook has. how many phones are advertised with facebook attached, and many websites too.

I assume many sites like this have lost out to Facebook and what comes after but I hope sites like this still carry on as the sense of community is lost I feel on the large social sites.

Edited February 2, 2012 by fred quimby

[eFestivals]

I see facebook being around for sometime (just watch it fad now) I think it has hit the social media at the right point, there are many more around but facebook is the one, as I say I remember certain people saying that google was a fad and wouldn't last as a search engine. Obviously it will be able to grow into new markets (hence the new injection of capital) and expand it's income.

Mark Z has always had 29% share in the company so nothing changes there. Will be interesting where he takes facebook now.

I see Neil mentions myspace as an example of failure but I think they just didn't hit the smartphone wave (yes I know Neil hates them to) as facebook has. how many phones are advertised with facebook attached, and many websites too.

I assume many sites like this have lost out to Facebook and what comes after but I hope sites like this still carry on as the sense of community is lost I feel on the large social sites.

there's a lot of wrong assumptions thru-out that, including the part which says that this site has probably lost out to facebook.

Facebook is as an advantage to sites like this just as much as it's detremental. What you're saying is much like saying "because The Sun is the biggest selling paper, all other papers are doomed". The reality is that the existence of The Sun guarantees the continuation - thriving, even - of the quality competition.

[eFestivals]

You made a comment above to suggest people where moving from Facebook to Twitter. I think this is flawed thinking. The two are pretty much completely different!

Google+ and Bebo are the only real competitors. Google+ is going nowhere fast and if Bebo sees out the year I would be surprised.

Fsacebook are churning users to twitter, of that there's no doubt. Yes, they're different fads that do different things, but lots of people are fad riders rather than embracers of what each site can do for a person.

I agree with you about Bebo. I disagree with you slightly about Google+, because it'll make more inroads to facebook use than you're thinking, but I doubt it affect it heavily.

Who is facebooks rival ?

the real world with real people doing real things, and all cat-free. Not everyone wants to spend their lives shouting at cyberspace in ignorant bliss that no one is listening or cares.

[eFestivals]

But thats your life

yeah, 850,000 people come here each month for no reason at all.

[eFestivals]

I don't get your point...

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.

[eFestivals]

Backing up my view that Facebook isn't worth $80-100Bn are a load of articles in many of today's broadsheets.

About the best it gets at a stretch is the view that it's worth $50Bn. I'd personally say $40Bn at a stretch.

It made a $1Bn profit last year. It's active userbase and page views have probably about peaked already (on the basis that all those who want to do facebook probably are already), so while there's probably scope to double that profit without too much problem, doubling it again to give a real-world valuation of $40Bn (based on about ten times profit, the normal way of valuing companies) is going to be a hard push I reckon.

[eFestivals]

Kids are screaming at their parents to be allowed onto Facebook and they are huge users of it once they get on to it...

and working against that are:-

1. their parents are very likely to be on it for those kids, which makes it 'uncool'.

2. The newer (younger) kids have less of a facination with it. Sure they want to be on it and check it out, but once they have it's not the be-all-and-end-all that it was to previous kids - says the father of a 15 year old who's got mostly bored with facebook and moved on, along with his classmates.

Its a way of life for kids to be on Facebook and to have these online networks.

Nope, it's much less than you're thinking.

I think the idea its all just a "fad" is a bit weak. Something might replace it but the concept of social networking "online" is here to stay. The only question really is if Facebook can move with the times.

social networking via computers has been around since 1985 at least; I know it's not going to go away as an overall concept. But along with that, the previous incarnations of social networking have (mostly) gone away, with a trend of "all-in" social networks (such as facebook is) alternating with specialist networks (which these forums might be considered to be).

Facebook moving with the times won't be enough to maintain its dominance. Other social factors (such as I give in 1 & 2 above, along with the alternising of 'all-in' and specialist) will always undermine the dominant force.

[eFestivals]

Your entitled to your opinion... As is your 15 year old... I see other people saying what you say and other people saying and acting differently...

The simple fact is that now as an old-hat thing it has lost some of the appeal. It's far less of a must-do for younger kids once they've been there and done it rather than just heard about it.

Dormant users - which facebook has an ever-increasing amount of - are the same as not being users. Kids who join today are far more likely to become those dormant users than those five years older than them.

I wouldn't speak confidently about its future success of failure. Its pretty difficult and silly to do either.

Perhaps. But I've called it right on every other occasion, and against a huge raft of comments saying those previous things are here to stay just as is beding said of Facebook now.

I'm not predicting Facebook's complete disappearance - it's too entrenched and dominant for that to happen anytime soon. But it's importance, it's 'must-do' factor, is already on the wane.

[fred quimby]

there's a lot of wrong assumptions thru-out that, including the part which says that this site has probably lost out to facebook.

Facebook is as an advantage to sites like this just as much as it's detremental. What you're saying is much like saying "because The Sun is the biggest selling paper, all other papers are doomed". The reality is that the existence of The Sun guarantees the continuation - thriving, even - of the quality competition.

[fred quimby]

Perhaps. But I've called it right on every other occasion, and against a huge raft of comments saying those previous things are here to stay just as is beding said of Facebook now.

I'm not predicting Facebook's complete disappearance - it's too entrenched and dominant for that to happen anytime soon. But it's importance, it's 'must-do' factor, is already on the wane.

[Jaybles]

Whilst I do agree that the future of facebook is by no means secure, Neil you have been saying its a passing fad for ages. At what point does a fad not become a fad? Most successful ventures have a shelf life, yet Facebook still gets deeper and deeper integrated with our life.

Personally I rarely go to the webpage on my PC anymore, but I am technically on Facebook all day with my phone. Increasingly, Facebook messenger has become the choice of communication between most of my friends due to it not limiting its userbase depending on hardware. Most people have built up such a large network that having them all available to contact at the touch of a button is very useful.

I have also seen how many sites have opted for a facebook user comment page, instead of having their own user database of users. For example I use 9gag.com alot and I signed up with my Facebook account to comment.

It will be interesting to see where Facebook goes from here but I would not rule it out being around another 8 years.

[Katster]

Just as a side note, I am friends with most people I know from here on facebook but some people are really hard to find. Especially as I am no good with names at the best of times, and usernames just confuse the issue! Please could people I am not already friends with send me their real life names, so that I can stalk them more easily? Many thanks.

[eFestivals]

Whilst I do agree that the future of facebook is by no means secure, Neil you have been saying its a passing fad for ages. At what point does a fad not become a fad? Most successful ventures have a shelf life, yet Facebook still gets deeper and deeper integrated with our life.

Nope. Facebook has already peaked. The only way is down.

Personally I rarely go to the webpage on my PC anymore, but I am technically on Facebook all day with my phone.

which only adds hugely to the down as it's far harder to make money via mobile ads than PC ads.

Increasingly, Facebook messenger has become the choice of communication between most of my friends due to it not limiting its userbase depending on hardware. Most people have built up such a large network that having them all available to contact at the touch of a button is very useful.

except for the more-than-half who aren't anywhere near facebook, meaning that you either have only facebook friends, or you have to leave facebook to contact all your friends.

And if you leave facebook to contact your friends you might as well contact them all away from facebook, as it's easier to contact them all from the same place. This is a part of the fatal killer blow to facebook, just as it was to MySpace and so much that came before.

What you're saying there is identical to what people said about MySpace and why that would never die.

It will be interesting to see where Facebook goes from here but I would not rule it out being around another 8 years.

Nowhere have I said it'll die completely; it would take a long long time for that to happen in the normal scheme of things.

But it has all the same flaws as have ultimately been killer flaws to all of the similar things that came before it. These flaws come into play far stronger once the novelty factor has worn off, and the novelty factor is starting to wear off (as the newer joiners [youngsters] to facebook are proving).

But my point in posting here wasn't to repeat again that it's a passing fad, it was to state that the valuation being put on it is laughable (even if the 'fad' aspect is taken as being wrong). It has no potential to ever reach yearly profits of $10Bn+.

[eFestivals]

Just as a side note, I am friends with most people I know from here on facebook but some people are really hard to find. Especially as I am no good with names at the best of times, and usernames just confuse the issue! Please could people I am not already friends with send me their real life names, so that I can stalk them more easily? Many thanks.

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

[kaosmark2]

except for the more-than-half who aren't anywhere near facebook, meaning that you either have only facebook friends, or you have to leave facebook to contact all your friends.

And if you leave facebook to contact your friends you might as well contact them all away from facebook, as it's easier to contact them all from the same place. This is a part of the fatal killer blow to facebook, just as it was to MySpace and so much that came before.

[Jaybles]

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.

[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]

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

[Katster]

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.

[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.

[eFestivals]

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.