Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Downloads after a month are in the 1-5 million range according to the Google Play store. That's pretty low, and probably doesn't account for people who uninstalled it after trying it out. And 1 star reviews are almost triple the 5 star reviews. Facebook is certainly more than Home, but this article is about Home as a significant component of FB's overall strategy, which is tilted heavily toward mobile monetization. Maybe they won't need it in the end. But then they're going to need something else, because mobile usage is growing faster than mobile ad revenue.
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Why should an Apple investor be shaking in his shorts by the prospect of FB getting its act together? They don't appear to be competitors to me. In fact, their working relationship is mutually beneficial. Sorry if you don't like my position, but I assure you I am not an assassin and only an amateur "analyst." Being compared to Fox News? Ouch. I'll try to make my rhetoric less hedge-y next time, I guess!
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
I agree. They're in this strange position--which may be untenable--of having to keep their users engaged while keeping their advertising clients happy to support the bottom line. This is not an insoluble conflict of interests, as Google has demonstrated (so far), but it's like walking a tightrope, and they're going to need at least as much luck and fortunate timing as money and programming talent to succeed. I wouldn't put it past them, and many people seem to believe in them a great deal, but would-be investors are going to need faith and patience... as usual, I suppose.
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Crap that Facebook itself has insisted on, as cited above? That their own usage data has borne out? That their CTO recently confirmed by stating that "Facebook is a technology company focused on mobile"? Does that mean they're wrong about themselves? The future of computing in general is mobile, at least growthwise, so why should FB be any different? Releasing Home wasn't necessarily a bad strategy for them, but early signs are it isn't working out. Maybe it will in the future. Whatever the case, they're not going to go anywhere relying on PC-driven ad revenue, and they know it. Also, I don't like to play "battle of the anecdotal evidence" too much, but I never look at or click on Facebook ads myself (or ads anywhere for that matter), nor do most people I know. I think people have become accustomed to them on Google (or have simply ad-blocked them like me), but don't appreciate them as much on Facebook. I personally don't think these businesses can survive long term solely dependent on advertising, but that's an entirely different argument and one people may reasonably disagree with.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Facebook [View article]
I agree. I neglected to mention this major event on October 29, when the largest share lock-up period ends. It probably is worth a wait and see on that account, though earnings come out the week before, and you never know, there could be a surprise in store (not likely?). Also, given the plummeting share price, many employees may themselves choose to wait and see. Maybe Zuck, who said he won't sell his, will make an impassioned plea for them to hold out, too. As for long term prospects, I remain skeptical. I'll be curious to see if FB is able to use the technologies it has developed to its advantage in penciling some revenue-sharing agreements, because advertising is not going to be reliable enough for them. It can't hurt to be the apple in Apple's eye, at least, especially given the latter's cold war with Google.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Facebook [View article]
It's amazing how cheap one can buy into it given the size of the company. There are, arguably, too many shares (with more possibly on the horizon), but perhaps it's only myopic to think most companies won't one day be equally diluted as (and if) the investor base expands and demand for equities increases. You don't need to feel much more than lukewarm about Facebook's prospects to make even a medium term play on it. If it slumps again after the next lock-up period expires, it could be worth picking up some LEAPS for a song and then seeing how it goes. Not much to lose and a whole lot to potentially gain?
What We Talk About When We Talk About Facebook [View article]
It's very easy to pick and choose examples if you pretend there are no differences. MySpace was poorly executed, poorly managed and poorly designed (but it does still exist). Facebook is heads and shoulders above it. It may still be obsolete in ten years, I don't know, but I wouldn't say it will become obsolete just because everything does. Ten or more years ago, you could also have said that nobody uses Mac computers anymore. Ten years from now, the same might be said of Windows PCs. Or PCs in general. Facebook will certainly have to prove it can transform itself along with changing times in order to stay competitive, but what company doesn't have to do that?
I completely agree about the missed opportunity here. I think Facebook's failure to follow through on its putative ideology of transparency and connectedness by offering its shares at a reasonable value directly to its members—the very people who create ALL of Facebook's value—is quite revealing about its actual motivations (that is, they are no better than any other company and possibly much worse). Instead of enriching and empowering its users, which would have made them quite loyal indeed, Facebook's founders decided to enrich and empower themselves—because Mark Zuckerberg really needs tens of billions of dollars and 55% of the voting rights for his company. Luckily, the environment in which they are competing has shown itself to be quite capable of replacing Facebook with something else when the time comes, and there will always be room for someone else to take advantage of the opportunities that are missed.
Facebook: In Case You Still Thought Markets Were Efficient ... [View article]
My favorite line from this article: "If you don't KNOW what your edge is … if you don't understand how or why you are likely to prevail over your competitors … then it may be you don't have one."
This is exactly right. The herd mentality is really hard for most people to avoid. The thinking is either: I better agree with everyone else, because the crowd probably knows better than I do; or, these suckers are all going to do this, so if I'm nimble enough, I can take advantage of their enthusiasm and get out before they do. Risky propositions both.
And I agree with the criticisms of so-called efficient market theory. It's a sorry state of affairs that our economic imagination is still so much hidebound to such hoary, 18th century notions, even after newer ideas (animal spirits, Stiglitz's work on asymmetric information—both particularly apt in the present case) have demonstrably put paid to Adam Smith's pin factory pedantry.
"Economics" literally means, more or less, the running of the household. I don't know about your households, but none of mine have ever been run according to any sort of rational system!
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]
I think you make good points. It doesn't make sense to me that things like dual share structures (or more in the case of Google) and concentrated ownership are either legal or desirable. There are probably some things I don't understand that justify them, but at the end of the day, they are just plain antidemocratic, which rubs me the wrong way whether or not they make money.
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]
Yes, but love is also a form of demand and the market can turn against its darlings pretty quickly when those demands, reasonable or not, aren't satisfied. Congratulations on doing well in the pre-IPO market. I guess FB was the first big opportunity in that arena. It will be interesting to see it develops further now that the major player has gone public. AMZN is a fascinating stock to me, too, and always a good case study for a contrarian.
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]
Those locked-up shares suddenly hitting the market is definitely something FB bulls need to worry about. We will never have enough information about what's going on behind the scenes, so all we can do is make rough guesses about what the insiders are thinking. On the day of the IPO, early investors and institutional backers dumped a hell of a lot of shares. This didn't happen with Google, which many people like to compare to Facebook. Does this mean Facebook's financiers have less confidence in the company than Google's did in it? Are they merely protecting their profits in an uncertain marketplace? Did they sell not because they lack confidence, but because the real gains for Facebook stock occurred in private markets that didn't exist a few years ago? I don't know. Insiders sell stock for all sorts of reasons. Even one of Apple's top guys recently dumped some shares. But even if sales after the lockup are modest, the offering was huge and 2.14B shares outstanding puts the company high on the list of companies with the biggest floats, so there's already a potential dilution problem. Yes, if Apple announces some sort of deal with Facebook, I'm sure the hype machine will start up again. But individual investors have to make up their own minds if such things justify valuations. The numbers are only a starting point, in my opinion, because nobody can predict where a company is going. Valuations on plenty of other stocks, especially in tech, are equally delusional.
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
Facebook Home Is A Disaster, But Is It A Catastrophe? [View article]
What We Talk About When We Talk About Facebook [View article]
As for long term prospects, I remain skeptical. I'll be curious to see if FB is able to use the technologies it has developed to its advantage in penciling some revenue-sharing agreements, because advertising is not going to be reliable enough for them. It can't hurt to be the apple in Apple's eye, at least, especially given the latter's cold war with Google.
What We Talk About When We Talk About Facebook [View article]
What We Talk About When We Talk About Facebook [View article]
'Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda' - Lessons Learned From Facebook's IPO [View article]
Facebook: In Case You Still Thought Markets Were Efficient ... [View article]
This is exactly right. The herd mentality is really hard for most people to avoid. The thinking is either: I better agree with everyone else, because the crowd probably knows better than I do; or, these suckers are all going to do this, so if I'm nimble enough, I can take advantage of their enthusiasm and get out before they do. Risky propositions both.
And I agree with the criticisms of so-called efficient market theory. It's a sorry state of affairs that our economic imagination is still so much hidebound to such hoary, 18th century notions, even after newer ideas (animal spirits, Stiglitz's work on asymmetric information—both particularly apt in the present case) have demonstrably put paid to Adam Smith's pin factory pedantry.
"Economics" literally means, more or less, the running of the household. I don't know about your households, but none of mine have ever been run according to any sort of rational system!
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]
Facebook IPO Investors: Muppets Or Mavericks? [View article]