Yet another reason why I am glad I never purchased Facebook shares.
Dear Facebook: I heard the news today, oh boy
Facebook has been tugging apart and putting back together its website over the past year, trying to make more cash out of its network and hopefully see its stock rocket now that it has Wall Street to answer to. The revamp has been a bit like watching a petulant child yank off the arms, legs, and head of a Barbie Doll, then …
-
Friday 8th March 2013 18:53 GMT mhoulden
And the admen get their money from where, exactly? This is the flaw at the heart of every "free" service. If companies ever decide "targeted" online advertising isn't the best way to persuade people to buy things, a lot of services will collapse. I had a quick skim of the Facebook annual report and couldn't find much covering how they make money away from selling advertising space. Looks like they could have problems in the future if they don't find other ways to bring the money in.
-
Friday 8th March 2013 19:49 GMT GBL Initialiser
I can't see advertising changing enough that it would prevent such services from selling advertising space. We have had advertising for a long time and it only seems to be increasing both online and out in the real world.
I'll admit that I know sod all about advertising but the only way I can ever see Facebook having trouble selling adverts is if the advertisers decide that they aren't reaching enough users. This could happen if Facebook's user base plummets or if major shopping websites (e.g. Amazon) start to have a more effective form of advertising i.e. not suggesting that people buy the same product (or type of product) that they purchased 5 mins ago
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 05:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
...or if...
If Farcebook itself starts to look too negative itself; perhaps giving off the impression of running out of steam or looking a bit frayed at the edges. There's nothing advertisers - particularly big 'brands' - hate more than being associated with something that isn't exceptionally shiny and "with it". Once the slide starts it becomes self perpetuating because ad men love nothing better than having their product hang about in packs - look at the collapse in magazine advertising, more 'rout' than 'slide'.
FB is also barely at the margins of 'useful' which could fairly quickly turn to 'irrelevant' if it's user base turns out to be half full of very unengaged occasional users - a whiff of looking like the collapse of myspace and the ad money will be off. Google doesn't have the same problem because its core offering, search, is far more of a fundamental necessity, and email, which it does fairly well, stubbornly refuses to die. Google's advertising is more like paid links, which requires little in the way of repeat user visits or engagment to pay, whereas FB is more focussed on brand building which requires a good deal more user attention over a longer period to convince ad men to centre campaigns on it.
I wouldn't go near FBs stock, but I'd take a bet that in ten years they'll look a lot like today's Yahoo; plenty of cash, but bitter and utterly irrelevant.
-
Monday 11th March 2013 14:02 GMT Lusty
Re: ...or if...
"There's nothing advertisers - particularly big 'brands' - hate more than being associated with something that isn't exceptionally shiny and "with it"."
Actually, big brands tend to use marketing rather than guesswork to determine whether advertising is worthwhile. Facebook has exceptionally good marketing tools to go with the advertising business and so they are likely to remain profitable for some time to come.
(disclaimer: many folk reading this site may want to look up marketing as it's often misunderstood as advertising by tech folk for some reason)
-
-
-
-
Friday 8th March 2013 19:38 GMT Paul Shirley
hope to get more people to hang around longer
I've lost count of the number of internet companies that tried creating portal pages we'd all be irresistable drawn to hang around on. It's a desperate plan that predates 56k dial-up and I don't remember it ever working.
The only advantage FB has is a service supposedly more addictive than crack. I suspect that won't work any more than it did in the early days, when the Internet itself was seen in much the same way.
-
Friday 8th March 2013 21:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
1/ Google actually honors your privacy, Facebook abuses it.
2/ Google+ has a REALLY good smartphone client, rather than that really crap Facebook one.
3/ Google+ is full of smart and interesting people, discussing smart and interesting stuff, rather than the cretins that post what they had for dinner on Facebook.
4/ Google integrates really nicely with all their services.
It's a no brainier for me. My family and friends I prefer to communicate with in person, everything else, it's G+
-
-
Wednesday 13th March 2013 16:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
Clearly you simply believe everything you read on the internet.
Google allow you to take your data elsewhere, Facebook doesn't
http://www.google.com/takeout/
Google allow you to TRULY delete everything they know about you. Facebook don;t (they claim to delete your account, but actually they don't Try deleting your account and signing into a new fake account and see who it recommends you may know...). Try the same test on Google, and whilst it takes 4-6 weeks, after that, they truly have removed everything about you.
Google allow you to opt out of advertising and tracking. Facebook don't.
https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
Google give you lots of really cool stuff in return for a little bit of info about you. Their privacy policy is very clear on what they can and can't do with your data. They can't sell on your details, all they can do is share details amongst their own services and use it to serve up relevant adverts.
Facebook give you a advert laden chat window for your friends and some farming games.
-
Monday 11th March 2013 04:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
4/ is the killer for me
I don't want everything integrated, I want my social networking as far away from my email and search results as humanly possible.
Google is by default my search provider it does a decent(ish) job of that, and while I can happily block all the Facebook foo outside of Facebook I don't want to block Google functionality and have to remember to log out in and out of Google accounts all the time just to stop them linking every last thing I do together.
I doubt I'm Facebooks ideal customer. I have Social Fixer installed to customize my newsfeed the way I want it (not the ways Facebook offers) and get rid of the ads + sponsored posts (brilliant tool btw and Google for all the 'we care about our users' just pulled it from the Chrome store) I also use a fake, but believable name something Google takes issue with.
-
Monday 11th March 2013 12:28 GMT Tom 13
Re: Google is by default my search provider
If you think Google hasn't figured out how to tie what you think are your anonymous searches to their database about you, you are sadly mistaken. They have their tendrils in the backend of just about everything on the internet.
I only sleep well on nights when I don't think about that too much.
-
Wednesday 13th March 2013 21:30 GMT Roland6
Re: Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
>I don't want to block Google functionality and have to remember to log out in and out of Google accounts all the time just to stop them linking every last thing I do together.
I've found running multiple browsers (ie. IE, Chrome, Firefox) on the desktop helps here.
-
-
Monday 11th March 2013 07:42 GMT Lusty
Re: Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
"3/ Google+ is full of smart and interesting people, discussing smart and interesting stuff, rather than the cretins that post what they had for dinner on Facebook."
Actually, since you only see your friends on either of these services, that would be your fault for hanging around with dullards. My Facebook feed is full of interesting people doing interesting things because those are the people I choose to have on my feed.
-
Monday 11th March 2013 10:57 GMT Ian Yates
Re: Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
"since you only see your friends on either of these services"
Minor point, but G+ is more like a cross between Facebook and Twitter, so you actually can "meet" lots of other people (unless you disable it).
I find G+ is better for following content creators (bloggers, photographers, videos, etc.) than Twitter, as they can directly share their content rather than just link to it.
-
-
-
Monday 11th March 2013 11:05 GMT Psyx
Re: Google+ over Facebook any day of the week.
"1/ Google actually honors your privacy, Facebook abuses it."
What? Seriously? So it doesn't totally suck my data and use me for advertising revenue?
"3/ Google+ is full of smart and interesting people, discussing smart and interesting stuff, rather than the cretins that post what they had for dinner on Facebook."
That's down to *your* choice of 'friendships', not the service. If you don't 'friend' idiots on FB, you don't have any!
"4/ Google integrates really nicely with all their services."
All the better to slurp your data, build a better advertising profile and SUCK YOUR SOUL with.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 01:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ponzi...
@Article
"for every one of the billion users supposedly engaged with Facebook"
This is one of the biggest internet ponzi schemes. One billion users!?! How many of these are in the name of cats, dogs, car-names etc?
Lets play a simple game here. Lets see how many of Reg readers are on Facebook with their real names and how many either do not have an account on Facebook or have used fake names. Please down-vote this post if you have just one account with your real name, else up-vote the post.
-
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Ponzi...
Two accounts, both with fake names. Had my real name on one account (friends and family one) until Farcebook's latest privacy change (making everything public by default... again) and instantly received a death threat from someone (who I barely know - said hello to once when with a mutual friend - aside from the fact even her husband ran away from her as she's that much of a nutter). Now life on Farcebook is even quieter (just the way I like it) as no-one knows who the strangely named kitten is on their friends list. Meow.
-
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 06:32 GMT bag o' spanners
clear as gravy
FB has long sinced moved towards a supposedly premium model for traders and large corporations, in that they'll bump their search rankings for dosh. They can get away with it, and boost rankings on external search engines based on sheer volume of hits and referrals, because it purports to be a closed system. Google have had their run ins with legislators for tilting rankings on a public search engine.
The subscription model that sucks in and retains 10% of the user base is more likely to come from mobile, where a couple of quid a month might be seen as a pittance, especially among the blathering classes. So don't be surprised to see the premium offerings being tilted heavily towards phone and slab users, with fancy schmancy "user customisable " configurations and the like. Throwing a sleb photo skin on it would probably seal the deal for the young and impressionable.Whether it's pea-brained footballers or disposable pop icons, it's all about representin', innit. Think of the image rights goldmine, dwarlinks, and the download charts, of course. Trebles all round!.
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 07:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
FaceBook emails bypass filtering for cash
FaceBook seem to have changed the options for receiving messages from people who are not "Friends". The default is now "Basic" - which allows many people you don't know to send you messages.
Even the alternative "Strict" setting will still put messages in your main inbox from people you don't know - but who have paid FB for the privilege.
http://www.facebook.com/help/521623774515569
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 10:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Facebook adverts are useless
I would like to know how the ads are targeted, I don't click any ads in FB but it still knows I'm a fat bastard with all the lose weight ads. Is it from other sites I visit and notice in comment sections I'm already logged in to post using my FB account. Although I always decline to add the comment to FB news feed.
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 13:50 GMT Whitespace
Re: Facebook adverts are useless
I was under the impression that if you land on any page with a "Like" button your facebook cookies / credentials are presented to facebook when it downloads the "Like" icon. So even if you have logged out but allowed cookies Facebook knows exactly where you are almost all the time.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
-
-
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 12:57 GMT roselan
Re: Funny
For me it's exactly like windows (I use linux). I should be too old to enjoy these punny ranting, yet their pathetic struggles bring smile to my cranky face. It's my secret sin.
I have no real grip with facebook, I had an account I visited once per year, which is now deleted. No big deal there. I guess I don't like it because it propels a bad side out of people, their vacuity and vanity.
-
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 12:26 GMT bed
FB makes money from (targetted it will be claimed) advertising. I have yet to see a relevant advert* though, fortunately, perhaps, the advertisers who fork out the money, have yet to realise this.
* I doubt that there are loads of lovely people of the opposite sex desireth of my company within 3 miles because a) the population density round here is pretty low, and b) half of the radius includes the north sea.
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 17:11 GMT Bruce Ordway
Facebook
I have fond memories of Compuserve. The communities were organized and useful. When the internet took over I hated its chaos. Google came along, added some sanity and I've been devoted.
Facebook? I've wondered who really uses it....
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-media-users/The-State-of-Social-Media-Users/Overview.aspx
-
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 18:30 GMT Camilla Smythe
Re: Please don't happen here too...
@Deadly...
"Please don't happen here too...
Given that The Register is a free site, does this article basically acknowledge that "we are the product" here too and thus we're probably about to get screwed over in the search of quick money through dodgy admen - a la Facebook etc.? I hope not, but..."
Coming in 'protected' El Reg runs Google Analytics and DoubleClick.. They also appear to want to run GoogleTagServices as well. Google AdSense also pops up going 'commando'.
Full and True Comment from El Reg as to the nature of this cruft would be appreciated.
-
Saturday 9th March 2013 19:27 GMT Paul Crawford
Re: Please don't happen here too...
True, El Reg is advert-sponsored as well, but given its rather tech-orientated nature those adverts are often of stuff I actually am needing/interested in.
OK, maybe not as interesting as some "speciality" sites, but here the adverts are less shame-provoking...
-
Sunday 10th March 2013 10:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Please don't happen here too...
"...Given that The Register is a free site..."
So it should be. The only original content here, ie. stuff that isn't rehashing the same press releases and "news" stories as all the other IT sites, are the comments... and we write those. How many of you would bother reading El Reg if there was no comments section?
Sites like El Reg provide a venue for people to argue about shite that doesn't matter with people they'll never meet, because in the "real world" no-one we know gives a toss about whether iOS is better than Android or Windows 8 sucks. In a way we're not that different from the FarcePuke addicts after all.
-
Sunday 10th March 2013 23:53 GMT Obvious Robert
Re: Please don't happen here too...
" How many of you would bother reading El Reg if there was no comments section?
Sites like El Reg provide a venue for people to argue about shite that doesn't matter with people they'll never meet, because in the "real world" no-one we know gives a toss about whether iOS is better than Android or Windows 8 sucks."
So true. I'd upvote you 20 times if it were possible!
-
-
-
Sunday 10th March 2013 09:04 GMT chriswakey
Different networks for different purposes.
It all depends on what you want from each network...
Facebook:-
Chatting to a friend in Poland (she uses FB Messenger almost exclusively to talk to everyone, so I have no choice).
Trading banter with colleagues and casting doubt on their sexual preferences (human, animal, vegetable etc).
Using my profile to log into sites that require it, such as Spotify used to.
G+:-
Decent, intellectual, conversation with like-minded people and groups.
A much, *much* better cleaner interface.
Massively better mobile app.
As G+ are now rolling out site/app authentication using your G+ account, that's one less thing to use FB for - pretty soon it'll just be for chatting to my Polish mate and nothing else, and at that point, I'll probably consider just closing my account or stripping it bare of all personal info and using it as nothing more than a glorified MSN Messenger.
-
Sunday 10th March 2013 12:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
There comes a point where you need to say "That's enough" and leave something alone. George Lucas never could do that and look at the mess he made with Star Wars.
Facebook does what most people want it to do. Just like email has a purpose and does that well.
If anything these "social network" sites are still playing catch up to IRC and earlier systems where lots of people could all chat in real time, send each other things and so on.
-
Sunday 10th March 2013 13:09 GMT DaddyHoggy
Typical Facebook Demographic
For years I resisted getting a FB account. Then I got one and used it loads and I was happy. But then FB started fiddling with my settings. Defaults suited FB's use of the site not mine.
Each revamp makes the site less attractive to me as a user so if we all feel love that, surely the advertisers who want us to get the ads must know too?
Same when I got my smart phone, initial usage was high, but when my newsfeed always defaulted to Top Stories and all these Top Stories were to "sponsored" stories I had no interest in... Well I pretty much stopped using it on much phone too.
So whatever FB has planned it's too late for me. I hardly use it now and quite a few who dragged me on to the site in the first place, have given it up completely!
-
Monday 11th March 2013 08:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
"Anyway, Zuck's idea is quite different – and that's because his "newspaper" is being run by admen who hold the front page."
…So basically Facebook is the free newspaper you don't want and goes straight into the bin without being read but despite how many complaints you make it's still regularly rammed into your letterbox with the end hanging out to let burglars know you aren't home.