Reply to post:

Jeez, we'll do something about Facebook murder vids, moans Zuckerberg

bazza Silver badge

From the article:

Faced with global criticism yet again, Facebook did what it has done many times in the past, and continues to do today – most recently with fake news – without learning the lesson: it changed its policies on this one aspect and went on as before.

That's quite right, and it's a kinda damning observations about a lot of what happens in Silicon Valley: a lot of web outfits there are one-idea companies. They never have another original thought after that first idea.

Facebook could, if it wanted to, introduce a range of paid for services, with the side effect that people who know they are financially (and therefore legally) traceable are less inclined to post illegal material. That'd solve a lot of their problems immediately.

Now I wonder, what could those services be.... Instant messaging? They bought a successful paid-for one (Whatsapp), made it free, now struggling to make money from it. Films? No, beaten to that by Netflix. Shopping? No, Amazon got there first. News gathering & reporting (instead of page scraping)? Means actually forming a new news agency... TV? No, means creating something. Books? Kindle...

Basically what I'm pointing out is that, for some reason, Facebook is hell bent on following the low revenue, freetard friendly, ad funded business model no matter what, even transforming acquired successful businesses to that model. To my mind it's always going to be a limited way of making money. Sure, they come up with a couple of technical additions to their services, but there's more to business than a web site design style guide and freeloading over the top of someone else. It's far more profitable and sustainable to do something really good at an affordable price that people are falling over themselves to pay for, but Facebook don't seem to want to do business that way.

Google aren't much better. They make a lot of money from the freetard business model, but they're actually quite vulnerable to having their search revenue legislated out of existence in some parts of the world. Google do at least make stuff - Android (another area where they face serious legal difficulties related to monopoly positions), and you can actually pay for online services from Google (though why you'd want to is another matter).

As for Twitter...

Apple? Makes actual stuff, and sells it, done remarkably well despite not having had a worthwhile original idea for 10 years now. Amazon? Bit of a mix, but actually provides a useful service worth paying for, and also makes stuff / TV. Netflix? Worth paying for if that's your thing. MS/Office365? They're making good money out of those subscriptions, even if they have lost the plot on their core OS. These outfits seem devoid of any problems with their user base and business model sustainability, in a way that Facebook, Google and Twitter can only dream about.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019