in the face

A better comparison would be to look at the Google IPO in 2004.

2003 Income Statement
Rev: 1B
Net Income: 100M
Mkt cap: 30B or so?

Also, interesting to look back at history: Google IPO? No Thanks

These things are a bet on how well and to what extent you think FB will be able to monetize their 700M users and grow to reach that valuation, just as it was a bet on how well Google would do the same with search. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. There was no history with search, and there's no history with FB's goldmine of user data.

facebook's here to stay
and i'm still trying to figure out how to up the privacy on my timeline :joy

LOL some random person called a broker that i know and told him he would like to get of Facebook IPO

I think there is a fundamental difference between google ca 2004 and facebook now.

We all know and accept that small ads are a part of the google game. We did then, and we do now.

For facebook to capitalize on their database, which is impressive btw...I could probably target an ad that would just show up on dino's wall if I wanted, but she already uses my shit, they need to break a bit of confidence.

It's not rocket science on how to make that thing a money printing machine. So far no ads show up in the newsfeed(sponsored I should say, but any company with an fb page telling stories and showing pix IS advertising) the ads on the side are small, and so on.

I don't *think* they can do the following things: increase revenue, maintain growth and keep daily users engaged all at the same time.

I don't think I'm the first person to realize this. They have resisted an IPO until the last minute possible. The real reason for all of this is they hit 500 individual investors, meaning they need to at least release the financials publicly. The other part is people want to cash out.

I think they will have problems in the transition to a public company. People share a lot with google, but people rarely go to google for fun. I don't 'hang out' at google.ca a whole lot. That's the difference for fb.

Besides...google can start gmail, and plus and android and branch into new, profitable areas. Facebook is mobile..but its free, you don't even get ads. You may be able to branch into facebook e-mail, which they are trying but it sucks but I don't see the ability to leverage the brand into new areas.

For me adding places, and timelines and chat is more a way to keep existing users enagaged and on the site, more than winning new users to it..."fine, I'll join fb now, because I've been looking for a site to tell people where I am" or "I've been looking for a new e-mail client, so the choppy, buried mail/messages feature buried 3 pages deep in facebook is the way to go"

I don't doubt that they'll do well, but I don't see this being the next big stock to take off.

^I agree, this is why for B2B marketing, people are still wary of fb as a tool to compete with google. a CEO or CIO or COO may do a google search and click on a relevant ad and do business with that company. But when they're on FB - they're probably at home, screwing around and don't want to be bothered.

with that said, for hte consumer market it's a complete goldmine. Picture a 19 year old logging into facebook and seeing an ad for Jay-Z in vancouver - they click on the ad, find out there's a show and buy tickets. Or a 45 year old married woman seeing a discount ad for expedia flights, and booking a discounted flight through Air Canada's FB page. It's a complete goldmine in the consumer market and all you really have to do these days it seems, is throw a discount on there, or make people aaware who otherwise weren't, for Facebook toget its value. With Google they would need to have the need and do a search for a flight or a concert. With FB they can find out about it for the first time just because FB knows that these are things they've updated their status on, or are attached to a page they belong to, or are in their description - rather than the user driving the need, FB is generating it based on what it knows are their interests.

facebook went down for 15 mins lulz

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-down-2012-2

share? i find it super hard to get people to like your page on facebook, even though everyone is always on it, no one wants to interact or have your business updates show up in their news feed.

it's a lot easier to gain followers on twitter though.

This is how I differentiate Google's and FB business model.

Google - relies on search -> people use google to look for something (flight deals) -> google shows your results, you click -> they profit. Google would keep updating their engine and make it as efficient as possible for you to search so whatever you're looking for is right at the top of your results list. This leads to more people using their search service and clicking more.

Facebook - relies on the network of 800 mln people -> they are able to smoothly connect peoples accounts to others. With that your provide your interests and personal information. -> to make more money FB have to push more ads or create more marketing exposure on the 800 mln people. IF they are able to do that without sacrificing the efficient networking between ppl, they can continue to grow. If not, it can be something that people will end up turning off to. It's almost like going to a steaming porn site and a bunch of ads comes up. Sooner or later, you're going to be fuck that i'm moving to another porn site.

"Mr. Choe would have received something in the area of 0.1 per cent to 0.25 of the company's stock, which would now be worth about $200-million based on a $100-billion valuation."

Graffiti artist took Facebook stock, now multimillionaire - The Globe and Mail

I invested heavily in Google on the date of it's IPO in 2004, buying in at $85 a share with absolutely no hesitation. I wouldn't touch Facebook, despite the stocks being considered similar.

The important difference between Google and Facebook is simple: Google has consistently expanded, revolutionized and found significant success in each and every field it enters; Facebook is a social media site, nothing more and I seriously doubt it ever will be.

Hypothetically, a competing search engine may one day rival Google and take a portion of their market share, however unlikely that sounds. If that were to happen, Google has android, maps, street view, scholar, books, gmail, translate, plus and so on to fall back on.

Hypothetically, if a new social media site one day rivals Facebook and cuts into it's revenue, it will have nothing to fall back on and no basis for expansion. Myspace and Nexopia were early social media giants that collapsed when they couldn't adapt to a changing market with stiff competition. Facebook is becoming increasingly cluttered with useless junk, I see an opening for more streamlined sites like Twitter to continue chipping away at Facebook's market share over time.

speaking of b2b, companies like bvsn, jive and saba are rising in stock value.
especially since facebook released a statement about an ipo coming may 21st
(smart move by zucker considering he kinda had to give in either way, ipo or not)
it seems the future is in this "cloud" computing and networking (b2b, b2c, etc)
so perhaps its better to invest in the companies providing these services?
kinda like investing in the companies that own the cellphone towers rather than the cellphone companies itself

going public is another good way to gain capital...

who knows, maybe we'll see a facebook F1 race car or more facebook sponsored large scale events.

most businesses use facebook indirectly for marketing anyways.

*whisper* You're a little late

IMHO, FB is simply another way people communicate with their relatives (F&F)

The whole thing started back in the day with ICQ, then when AOL bought it and ceased to update, MSN messenger came along and took over. Facebook basically brought us an online version of it and record much more than just conversation history.

And I say it's all the same because I keep seeing the same problem:
When I had ICQ, I would ask every friend, and those who I first met to see if we could chat online. My account got so many friend on the list that I can't remember who's who.

When I moved to MSN, I re-organized my friends on ICQ... only those who I really talk moved to MSN. Then as I abandone ICQ, I started adding new friends to MSN, and people who I get to know would ask me for MSN too. My list again grew so big, I can hardly remember anyone if they don't keep a pic or their name in their profile/status.

Now, with FB, I use less and less MSN. I moved all the people that I had on MSN to FB... and the same thing again... people who meet me for the first time asks for my FB account. Even with some resistance, my FB still grew from the 5x people that I really care/talk to 2xx that I have no idea how they got my FB in the first place.

As far as the history goes, something someday would come along which everyone would start jumping ship... by then, FB will die down... probably not fast... but it would eventually.

So, unless FB stops being an one-trick bunny, my money would stay with GOOG or AAPL.

this is incorrect. search results are based on site popularity based on number of visitors and relevant content. google makes $0 off clicks to websites and has no control over order - thats a conflict of interest. the ads on the top and side of search results are the ones google makes money off of. only 15% of searchers click on those ever and advertisers are the ones who control how much to pay for their ads and what position theyre willing to pay for; once again google does not interfiere. facebook ads are the same thing but rely on knowing who you are, rather than what ur searching for, to presentthe ad content to you.
Posted via RS Mobile