Feeds

back to article Facebook wunderkind admits share price Zuck-up on stage

In his first big interview since taking Facebook onto Wall Street with all the savoir-faire of a tramp in a dirty Santa outfit, internet billionaire Mark Zuckerberg has confessed that his company must do better. He added that performance of the free-content ad firm's stock "has obviously been disappointing". The 28-year-old exec …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Happy

Mis-read first para

.> He added that performance of the free-content ad firm's stock "has obviously been disappointing".

I read:

He added that performance of the content-free ad firm's stock "has obviously been disappointing".

9
0
Trollface

Re: Mis-read first para

"Content-free"? How can you say that? They haz kittehs!

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Mis-read first para

NomNomNom likes this comment

4
0
Anonymous Coward

"Facebook's troubled float onto Nasdaq was "not the first up and down that we ever had"."

that's "up" for him and "down" for the punters?

2
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: "Facebook's troubled float onto Nasdaq was "not the first up and down that we ever had"."

Facebook floated? I thought it sank?

5
0
Gold badge

Re: "Facebook's troubled float onto Nasdaq was "not the first up and down that we ever had"."

With that much hot air in one place, I'm amazed that the bloody thing doesn't fly.

What are they using for ballast?

3
0
Mushroom

Re: "Facebook's troubled float onto Nasdaq was "not the first up and down that we ever had"."

>What are they using for ballast?

Zuck's ego?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"I think a bunch of people are underestimating us."

No, no they're not. Seriously, they're not.

9
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Love the talk about search

They pinched someone who was in charge of maps, currently use Bings technology and hope to use these amazing tools to help them to move into Google's patch.

Funny stuff

That said, the only way is up.....

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Love the talk about search

NomNomNom likes this comment

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It's all down hill from here. It no longer is fresh, exciting or even optimal. Things like this start off being useful but grow until they become a mess (See MySpace).

As soon as they float or get sold on the quality dips. It won't be long before there are calls for Zuckero to step down, only to get replaced by some career executive climber who has experience in running big IT giants but no idea of social media.

Floating just gave them the option to buy other companies instead of creating "cool" stuff.

Zuck's own words said it all though, it was about how they can grow the amount of advertising they push to mobile users. Not about what great new features are on the way.

2
0
Silver badge

That's my worthless theory for why Google became so big. It wasn't that their search engine was so much better than the others (yahoo, etc), it's just that they didn't clutter up the search page with lots of slow loading ads and entertainment news. Just a clear page with a textbox and a button saying "search" or "go" or whatever the hell it was.

I just checked and can't believe how much of a clone Bing is. Even the menu in the top left has kind of the same items in kind of the same order. But they've made a boo boo and covered their search screen with a big messy photo of autumn trees. Bad move imo...

You are absolutely right though about facebook I think. The more stuff they've added (including or should that be 'ad'ed) the more cluttered and chaotic it feels.

2
0

While not trying to be a "portal" (as I think it was called) certainly helped, we probably forget how much better Google was than its competitors when it came out. It simply worked considerably better.

And their real success was in figuring out how to do search engine advertising properly. Before Adwords, search engines used to monitise by charging for inclusion or for results. ie they either tried to make people pay to be spidered (reducing the quality of their results by not including/keeping up to date the vast majority who didn't pay), or by essentially hiding advertisers within their organic results (reducing their quality in exchange for cash).

Google had this idea that you could put clearly delineated ads that were triggered by search terms, squaring the circle of how to maintain quality search engine results while making so much money that it needed to be delivered in container ships.

3
0
JDX
Gold badge

Blah bl;ah blah. People have been saying FB's going downhill since it had about 1 million users.

0
3
Bronze badge

" we probably forget how much better Google was than its competitors when it came out. It simply worked considerably better."

And it continues to.

Try comparing the Bing and Google searches for "2>&1"

3
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@ Lord Voldemortgage

Try comparing the Bing and Google searches for "2>&1"

Interestingly, DuckDuckGo fell over almost as badly as Bing on that search term, which is surprising because it's normally quite geeky and generally returns good results for mathematical statements...

Google's top result was a Stackoverflow link explaining the significance of 2>&1 in piping stderr into stdout, which was about what I was expecting. Bing and DuckDuckGo both returned some Jewish-sounding marriage ministry as their top result. WTF?

3
0

Facebook is Doomed!

I am no expert but it seems clear to me that with so many users uploading staggering amounts of data (photos, videos) then the operating costs must be spiralling out of control. You've got to pay for the physical storage, engineers to maintain, backups etc - the costs must be astronomical!

The difficulty I think they have from an advertising point of view is that the event has already passed so they can't serve a relevant ad. Or put another way I email someone on gmail saying "fancy going to the cinema next week?" and gmail will serve an ad for cinema listings next week. Typical use on Facebook is to post a status update saying "went to see Batman last night and it was brilliant!". There is no point serving me an ad at that point because I've already done it. Same with attending weddings, parties, re-unions, holidays etc.

I don't know how they have got themselves into a corner where they are giving major corporations free advertising through the use of Facebook pages but that was just madness as well.

The only option I can think of is to do location based advertising on mobile combined with business intelligence and analysis of past user behaviour - e.g. an ad pops up on your device for shops that you are near that are a) open at that particular time and b) sell things you are likely to want.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Facebook is Doomed!

storage is cheap tho

I can only guess that they want to be the platform and that soon their loyal users don't use the web but use facebook instead. That's the motivation for having search and explains the earlier, lunatic idea of a facebook phone. That way, they know even more about the users (not just what they've just done but what they are thinking of doing) and hey presto, they are the advertisers' choice. If that's the case, it's not everyone else who's under-estimating them but rather its them over-estimating themselves. I think Google et al might be quite resistant to the idea too.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Facebook is a ponzi scheme - pure and simple

Until - and only until - there is a *serious* tangible advantage to *me*, will I sign up to Facebook.

Who is going to pay for that advantage ?

2
2

This post has been deleted by its author

disappointing=finding true value

Glad to hear they are sorting out the mobile ad issue and will soon be able to swamp mobile devices with ads.

Cheers Mark.

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by its author

He's a glass half-empty kinda guy?

but yet he says "I would rather be underestimated, I think a bunch of people are underestimating us."

So he thinks they're worth more than they are?

For a glass half-empty kinda guy, that's a glass half-full kinda statement.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: He's a glass half-empty kinda guy?

he means misunderestimating

2
0
Facepalm

Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

Facebook is a college yearbook website that expanded to accept non-students. It was never really a fully visualized social networking platform. The internet provides the capability to realise a truly radical and innovative vision of social networking, rather than the shallow platform Facebook delivers. We can do much much better and I believe in time people are realizing this, and Facebook will become the next Myspace and make way for something better.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

Are you going to post this exact same comment about every FB story, James?

0
0
Happy

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

Enigmax - Well spotted. No I don't intend to post the same thing everytime Facebook is mentioned, however I felt it said what i wanted say so I said it again. So, yes, I repeated myself.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

Start implementing your vision. If you are right either Facebook or Google will buy you out for a couple billion

0
0
JDX
Gold badge

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

"Facebook is a college yearbook website that expanded to accept non-students. It was never really a fully visualized social networking platform. "

Fair point except that FB today is very different from FB when it was a college yearbook. That version no longer exists.

0
2
Megaphone

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

I agree.

ultimately 2 facts will lead to the downfall of Facebook and the success of the network I have started building:

1. To be truly social requires the ability not just to communicate with friends but to make them initially, so that you can communicate with them.

2. Facebook allows no way for this to happen.

3. When my network cracks that nut, Facebook and Google will suffer massive attrition as friends are made and ultimately transferred over to my system: because for the first time people have a compelling reason not just to add sociopaths they don't talk to anymore, but also NEW people too that they might actually like to talk to.

4. Making friends has the side effect of making people more happy and more willing to spend.

5. Friendships stagnate, let's face it, people kinda suck don't they. Again, this causes attrition to Facebook, but they have implemented no easy way for the user to make replacement friends. So they just have to be alone. Not very fun.

Kinda simple when you lay it out like that.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

"1. To be truly social requires the ability not just to communicate with friends but to make them initially, so that you can communicate with them."

These things have existed for years. They're called chatrooms. You can make friends in those. Sometimes you can even meet them and fuck.

0
0
Boffin

Re: Facebook is not the social networking platform of the future

yeah so you would think a "genius" like Zuckerburg would think to put one in, its not like it would cost him much of his billions, but he's too fucking stupid.

0
0
Thumb Up

What a

cocksuck3r.

1
0
Holmes

Not So Savy

I don't think Zuckerburg is that savy about what people actually want. All they are focused on is monetizing and they seem ready to do literally anything to do that. I don't think the concept itself, the Facebook proposition if you like, actually adds up yet and I'm wondering if it ever will. I understand they are no longer planning to make phones, what the hell was that all about anyway? the whole enterprise seems adrift at sea. And maybe it's for the best that things don't come together properly and we move onto something better.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.