Tell me that's not an asset. A single company has lots of information about and can display advertising to an eighth of the alive human race.
Then again, so does Google, I suppose.
Tell me that's not an asset. A single company has lots of information about and can display advertising to an eighth of the alive human race.
Then again, so does Google, I suppose.
If anything, that brings FB into a whole new realm of risk. Combine this with the fundamentals ( or lack of ) and it seems better left untouched.
...but that's it. They aren't building a physical product, they're going to sell other people's products. Or, sell information so that other people can sell other people's products.
I find it absurd that the market for web based adverting, between Google and Facebook and others, can be this valuable in the long run. These are advertisers, for crying out loud. People can talk about how many users Facebook has, but there are more automobiles worldwide than there are Facebook users.
What is worth more; a car purchaser, or a Facebook user?
Didn't that used to be true of MySpace?
Whereas Ford faces very real, present competition in a market full of extremely competent players.
Also it's good to note that their are companies being built on top of Facebook. Zynga is an obvious one but there are many smaller game companies, ad companies..ect and Facebook takes a cut of all of these
You're talking like the answer to this question is obvious. People will keep cars for 10 years, and they're as likely as not to get them from Toyota instead. At this point, Facebook is probably making a little bit of money (indirectly from Ford advertising) from that car purchase. Not as much as Ford, sure, but Facebook extracts a little bit of revenue from many, many consumer transactions.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+many+cars+are+on+th...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/23/car-population_n_934...
All that leaving aside the fact that car companies build other things, like heavy equipment and military vehicles.