patrick.net

It will take a little longer than that ...

FB is turning into another irreplaceable .com company. MySpace, on the other hand, is dying.

Have you been to MySpace lately?

Me? No.

rewind back to

2005....

"Myspace is turning into another irreplaceable .com company. Geocities, on the other hand, is dying."

in a couple of years just replace the names, but will still be the same..

1998 -You guys keep your eyes on AOL - it's going places.

Facebook is only One Public figure Celeb politician type getting done in by a Facebook post biting him/her in the ass, away from some compelling changes being made to both Facebook and the internet period.

Every day Facebook or Tweeter kills someone's career, I can't believe people actually sign up for that violation of personal information gang rape.

We're not ready for technology like Facebook and Google, we're to damn stupid for it. Google searches can be used against you in court for now, but I suspect that in the future potential employers will be able to obtain your recent Google searches.

People will wake up one day and realize Big Brother is here, and they've been gleefully willing and dancing under the surveillance cameras all along.

Then in the course of less than one week companies like Google and FB will loose 70 to 80% in value.
Google has other going for them, and that's why. They realize their online business model isn't sustainable for ever.

Like this...
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/07/04/fox.hack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Come on guys, this shit can't last forever with out major sweeping changes, that would also include what otherwise we as Americans would consider "Free" speech.

I honestly don't "get" facebook. I know people who say that they spend hours on fb but I don't know how. I must be missing something.

Facebook is the Myspace of Tomorrow.

Facebook is not MySpace for a few reasons. Mainly, the interface. It's far easier to use than MySpace was. MySpace became ghetto social networking where everything was blinged out like a Jay-Z video.

I'd invest in Facebook. I think the 650 million paid for MySpace was an act of desperation.

Tenouncetrout says

Google has other going for them,

Not now, 10 years from now or ever, its all Advertising Revenue.
Thats all they will ever get.

@Elliemae

>I honestly don't "get" facebook. I know people who say that they spend hours on fb but I don't know how. I must be missing something.

Who needs Facebook when you have us at Patrick.net :-)

In a way I guess facebook is kind of pointless. Patrick.net is a much better place, ideas and concerns can be shared and discussed much easier.

SF ace says

Facebook has 750M registered user. A good handful of them are the sticky type that logs on daily and spends a large amount of time. That's a lot of economic potential.

I work with people who spend their evenings on fb. They play the games and chat with people, I guess. Every time they make a change (to take over the world), I spend less time on it.

Truly the only reason I use fb is to see my family's baby pics. Otherwise, it's a colossal waste of time - that's because I have a telephone.

Anybody see Zillow today? Traded at $60 a share.

Ridiculous..

2 ppl i know has over 400 "friends" on their fb account, to me that just seems stupid.

Sure looks like Google's social network Google+ is aiming to cut Facebook off at the pocketbook.

http://allthingsd.com/20110721/soon-to-debut-google-games-will-hit-facebook-where-it-hurts-the-pocketbook/

I wanna start a website called Righthook.

Where you Foe people.

A special place on the Internet where you can keep your Shit list and sort out the people on it. Send them lewd photos and berate them every chance you get. Doctor up photos of people you despise, and photo shop them in compromising positions.
Cheat at virtual card games, and hack peoples profile.

The only Planking is done on mile marker 89, and no one shares their crappy play list.

All of the cool people would be the ones with the most "Loathes". And everyone follows who's trippin'.

I think Google+ will do better.

I browse the internet and know how to use a computer, but I'm not a big technology person. I don't have a facebook account. Other people have shown me their facebook pages. It isn't for me, but it obviously is for many people. And these people won't give it up without an alternative. If facebook keeps it compelling, they will likely keep their users for a long time, maybe forever. What I don't get is the advertisers (I'm assuming that this is the revenue stream/potential revenue stream that actually converts users into money). I actually don't understand the whole pay per click model. I know of 2 people that did facebook advertising. It is possible that their product was not good (seemed good to me), or that their ads were bad (seemed good to me). They put money into facebook ads, facebook says that they got a lot of clicks, facebook took their money, and they had close to no conversions. Did they really get the clicks? Who knows, according to the facebook movie, it's founder is not exactly portrayed as an honest businessman. Are real conversion rates anything but infinitesimal for any business? Or is pay per click simply a way for the likes of facebook and google and other content providers to coerce get-rich-quickers and rubes into paying fifty cents or whatever every time me (or someone like me) curiously or accidentally clicks an ad (often with no intention of buying anything)? Anyway, even when you are really intent on buy a product, how many ads do you click on? I do a lot of clicking. Much of the time my clicking and research gives me information that keeps me from making the purchase, or gives me further questions to delay the purchase until I forget about it. It's crazy to think that people are paying for each of these frivolous clicks. I've seen some articles that say how brilliant this advertising is for companies. I often wonder if these (unbiased?) articles are secretly sponsored by the likes of google and yahoo and facebook and content providers. I would imagine that they would push those articles to the top of the search rankings. Traditional television and newspapers even make money from online advertisers. If the whole thing were a scam, who would tell us? Maybe some bizarre website that would be banned from getting any search engine traffic...

I think the scam can run for a long while though... and facebook and google will fly high for awhile. Linkedin? I don't know, I'm not linked in. Is it a PPC business model or do you have to pay a subscription fee? Subscription is different than PPC.

I think of PPC as I thought of the negative amortization and NINJA loans of yesteryear... a way to make online companies' valuations go up... without actually adding value. And a lot of money will be made by some on that way up. And a lot of money is/will be thrown away by many until the scam is exposed. I suspect, though, that for every affiliate advertiser (or whatever the relationship to the actual product selling company) that loses his/her life savings and gives up on paying for clicks, another one steps up with his/her life savings to trade for fruitless clicks.

Patrick seems to have a lot of traffic on this site. If converting traffic to money were (HONESTLY) easy, I think Patrick would not have to ask for donations. But I feel that Patrick is honest.

Myspace is just another company Rupert Murdoch owned or owns that should have been killed in its crib.

Google is likely to make huge inroads. They have so many products they can link and tie together to create a beautiful mesh of products/services for the average user. Phone service, multiple video conference, photography integrated into the site, etc.

Why will google do well? Because they've got that black bar at the top of their page now. Whenever you log into google to do a search, you'll be reminded about something or someone posting on your google+ page. They will pound this into you, and eventually get you to turn over to them.

Facebook is likely to stay around. Google will become the more dominant player in 2-4 yeras.

Zygna requires constant 1 hit wonders to sustain itself. If you look at the graph of their games/usage, you'll notice they basically create they 6-8 month wonders, that then slowly die off as people get bored of them. I was actually just looking at a graph of players vs time last week and they really lose users pretty quickly.

Linked in is something entirely different. It's for jobs and business contacts. People generally keep random crap off linked in, while they'll post anything to facebook. Linked in is a professional service. In fact my current company uses recruiters that solely use linked in to find candidates through networking. Linked in is also far more heavily used in other parts of the world for contractors and what not. That is a niche market that is likely to stick around, because people need a professional place to go.

For now, I don't see facebook going anywhere. I've used g+, and it's basically the same exact thing with less features. Why switch?

You can use your facebook to log into and/or comment on various websites now, so you don't have to have 40 different logons across the web. If, patrick.net used FB Connect, I'd use it. I don't like have so many different identities across the web.

Facebook has a great deal of value because of the massive amounts of time people spend on it. The amount of data they have to market you product is ridiculous. The old school mail marketing companies would die for that level of specificity. Targeted marketing doesn't bother me in the slightests...I'd rather see an ad that pertains to my interests than some random advertisement that doesn't concern me.

I'm not saying it's invincible, but it is far stronger than myspace ever was. MySpace pages became chaotic, and involved altering HTML code to customize your page. By the time they fixed it, it was too late. It also became rampant with spam from bands and other products. FB doesn't a pretty good job of filtering that stuff out.

Twitter on the other hand...I feel like someone has to be able to come up with an improved version of that.

RealisticOptimist says

You can use your facebook to log into and/or comment on various websites now, so you don't have to have 40 different logons across the web. If, patrick.net used FB Connect, I'd use it. I don't like have so many different identities across the web.

Do you really want people to google your name and find all the posts on every place you've made? Some political views tend to come back and bite one in the ass. You aren't using your real name on patrick.net for a reason.

+1

Esp if you have coworkers, your boss, etc as friends.

EMan says

Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly of course.

Irrational Exhuberance says it all.

The biggest advantage that google has, is that every time you search, you're going to have that "black bar" at the top notifying you of "new" events on your google+ account. People must currently log into facebook to see news, or read their email to see updates.

Google can pound you with "update your G+ account now!!" every time you do a search and/or check out your email, etc.

By entering the "Social Networking Wars," Google's Google+ has added $45 Billion to its market value or so a USA Today reporter surmises. Should we give the USA Today reporter a +1 for that observation?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-07-26-google-stock-google-plus_n.htm

It’s easy to look back at MySpace — the social network and music-sharing site that was founded in 2003, four years before the first iPhone was released — with warmth and nostalgia. The extreme angle selfies taken on an actual camera! The cutesy, colorful, cluttered profile backgrounds! Tom’s reassuring, smiling face! And sure, it was fun — and if you were the sort of person who had an extreme side-part to indicate that you liked alternative music (or at least, you crushed on boys who liked alternative music), joining was a must. But it was also absolutely brutal.

One of MySpace’s flagship features was the Top 8 friends function, which gave you the ability to bookmark the profiles of your chosen besties front and center on your page, so that anyone who stopped by got an instant, flattering impression of who you were and who you hung out with. You could stick with the default, which would put co-founder Tom Anderson in the top slot; but that looked kind of tragic, so nobody did. Instead, you would spend hours curating the perfect friend ranking. Yes, despite most users being years out of middle school, MySpace made you rank your friends in order of how much you liked them. For the love of Tom, what was that all about?