122 karma · joined May 25, 2007
As for the technology, we've seen how cheap and reproducible that is. News.yc, Reddit, Digg, Netscape, and dozens of other sites have technology that probably beats that of Truemors. So the company isn't worth buying for that.
Some companies get bought for their employees. Well, Guy's "1.5" employees, if he's talking about a full-timer and part-timer other than himself, aren't visionaries, they're just people who can turn around one of Guy's ideas. Come to think of it, that makes them better potential hires for a big company than most headstrong, visionary startuppers.
So Guy just spent $12k making himself feel good. By doing so, he demonstrated how detached he is from the real world -- which, psychologically speaking, is a fine way to live. If you're like Guy and you can afford to blow $12,000 doing it.
We did hear it last year; I reported it several times at Valleywag.
Facebook has smaller profits, but the point of the small staff is that their personnel costs are also 100 times smaller than Google's. And yes, they could be making more money, great!
I haven't seen the falloff numbers either, so we both concede that point. Is MySpace's user base actually growing more than Facebook's? Anyway, like you said, Facebook's revenue could grow without growing the userbase.
Facebook is for fun, but more and more it's social in a useful way. That's why my 37-year-old media-minimogul boss is hooking up with VCs, bankers, and other rather influential people (ones not connected to Web 2.0!) on the site.
Side note: Facebook encourages users to track the activities through which they mediate relationships. They can share photos of their real-life interactions, join groups, etc; LinkedIn only has a limited version of this. So I can learn a lot more about my contact's connection to someone I want to meet through Facebook than through LinkedIn. "Anyone dumb enough to mix business with pleasure" is a lot of people. Hell, even Congress works that way, sadly.
I'm confident Facebook can compete in those other countries the way it does in the US: by being more "legit" and "safe" than Bebo, a MySpace-like group with little basis in real-world groups, and Orkut, heavily criticized in Brazil as a pedophile's haven thanks to Google's protection of "user privacy."
Safer being acquired? Ha, yeah, I'd feel safe with Yahoo's execs overseeing me, what with CEO Terry Semel barely keeping his job and two of the top three positions vacant. Facebook doesn't want to commit itself to Yahoo's disappointing ad system (the new Panama wasn't up to snuff); if he joined them it'd be after the company got over its midlife crisis.
It's in Facebook's best interests to mature on its own and partner with the big boys. The company's on a healthier trajectory than Yahoo and Microsoft (and Amazon and eBay, for what that counts), so it should stay under its own roof and play off their strengths without taking on their burdens.
I should have clarified. After Valleywag, I was courted (briefly; I wasn't too interested and they didn't push THAT hard) by several newspapers that I would have killed to get into back at college.
Facebook pulls in a profit. The site can demand a higher CPM than Myspace (thanks to the higher quality of its pageviews and its more attractive demographics); the company employs only 85 developers; the user base constantly replenishes itself as new students join pre-existing networks; older users are increasingly comfortable connecting through the site as an alternative to LinkedIn; the international markets leave room for growth. I expect Facebook to go public.
As an amateur web historian, I wish the author wrote more about why Prodigy is a particularly good comparison.
By the way, "the power...is powerful"?