Facebook Adds 96 Million Shares, Will Privacy Get Worse After IPO?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Adds 96 Million Shares, Will Privacy Get Worse After IPO?

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday May 16, 2012 @08:00AM from the ramping-up-farmville-production dept.

AlistairCharlton writes "Facebook has made yet another amendment to its S-1 filing, adding a further 96 million shares, pushing its initial public offering up to a potential maximum of $18.4bn (£11.5bn). In what is the eighth amendment to its S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Facebook has also increased the number of shares allowed for over allotment, up from 50.6 million to 63.2 million." Facebook will have a lot of pressure to increase revenue after it goes public. jfruh writes in with a story about how that will impact their privacy policies. "There's been a steady drumbeat of panics over the past few years involving how Facebook uses the personal information you give it; nevertheless, someday you'll look back at 2012 as the golden age of Facebook privacy. That's because, once Facebook has its IPO, it'll come under huge pressure from the markets to extract more revenue from its business. And with display advertising not generating game-changing amounts of money, Facebook has only one valuable resource: your data, which is going to be monetized as hard as possible."

55 of 191 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Will it? Yes. And here's why. by WillAffleckUW · 2012-05-16 08:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Will it make privacy worse?
Yes.
And here's why:
Read the fine print of the IPO - it says FB "will do evil whenever it can".
Now if that is not a slap in the face of Google, I don't know what is.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by jaymz666 · 2012-05-16 08:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits, so of course they will do that by reducing privacy
2. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by WillAffleckUW · 2012-05-16 08:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits, so of course they will do that by reducing privacy
  Which will, of course, result in successful lawsuits and fines in Canada and the EU.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
3. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by TubeSteak · 2012-05-16 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits, so of course they will do that by reducing privacy
  Do you know that Facebook will have 1 shareholder with 55.8% of the voting shares?
  That shareholder is CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
  Zuckerberg e could do whatever he wants with Facebook after the IPO and never have to work another day in his life.
  The only shareholder that matters doesn't need maximized profits.
  How do facts jive with your "reduce privacy to maximise profits" ideology?
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
4. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by jaymz666 · 2012-05-16 08:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  considering THEY ALREADY DO IT and HAVE DONE IT, it jives pretty well.
5. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by alexander_686 · 2012-05-16 08:25 · Score: 2
  
  I love it when people use the hackneyed logic. Yes it is true – but it does not mean that a company hast to rape, pillage or commit short term fixes to make next quarter’s earnings. As long as the C.E.O. can stand up and say – with a straight face – that their actions is part of a plan for the long term good of the company their safe.
  What this phrase means is that Zuckerberg can’t screw the minority shareholders because it’s inconvenient. If company X offered to buy out FB at a 20% premium, Zukcerberg must evaluate that offer in the interest of all shareholders – not on the basis that he would be kicked out of the door the following day.
  And to answer the original question, I would not think the FB will change it’s privacy policy much. Yes, shareholders can bring pressure. But Zuckerberg controls over 50% of the voting stock and he has been exerting a lot of pressure to grow Facebook – so I don’t see the overall pressure, which is high, to change. (Which I thinks says something about my opinion about FB’s privacy policy – so take it with a grain of salt.)
6. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by Sir_Sri · 2012-05-16 08:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And might be why they won't do it.
  Facebook has managed to behave the way it does for the same way Wiretapping laws didn't apply to Skype for a long time, as long as you're a bit player in the business no one gives a shit what you do. As Facebook has gotten big governments have started to take notice. The bigger they are, and the more public they are the more likely governments are to take notice, and if rules don't exist they'll write new ones.
  Governments are slow to react to change, that's the nature of the beast, and they have a lot of things on legislative plates that always seem far more pressing than whatever problem I think they should be addressing today. But that's beside the point, piss enough enough important representatives with TSA groping, Privacy Violations (wait until some important senators kid gets stalked via facebook and see how quickly the rules change), or whatever else and see just how quickly government can write new laws. And being publicly traded valued at 100 billion dollars means you don't have a lot of excuses about 'we can't afford to run our business like that' and if you don't comply your shareholders and the government will not be pleased.
7. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-16 08:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Do you know that Facebook will have 1 shareholder with 55.8% of the voting shares?
  I am pretty sure that Facebook is required to maximize the profit of all its investors, despite the fact that one investor holds a majority stake. As CEO, Zuckerberg does have a duty to all of Facebook's investors, not just his own vision...
  
  The only shareholder that matters doesn't need maximized profits.
  How do facts jive with your "reduce privacy to maximise profits" ideology?
  ...except that Zuckerberg has already attacked privacy rights, both in statements and through Facebook's policies and design. So there is really no reason to think that he would not continue to do so.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
8. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by Alien+Being · 2012-05-16 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  No, they have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the shareholders' best interests which is not necessarily maximizing profits. It's what they sell to shareholders in their prospectus that matters. Go read Google's prospectus to see what makes them different from most other companies, particularly the sections about "privacy", "evil", "long term" and "brand".
  I don't work for Google or own any part of them.
9. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-05-16 08:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  People will only be driven away if they see their privacy being violated -- information exposed to friends, etc. Now, suppose that Facebook just conveniently sells more detailed information to advertisers at higher prices, without telling the users -- nobody will leave the site, and even if they are told what is happening they will just say, "Well so what, I am not that interesting so why should I care?"
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
10. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by tlhIngan · 2012-05-16 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  As a future shareholder of facebook, I wil lbe encouraging it - I want access to all that sweet sweet data since I effectively own a part of it!
  On a more serious note, there is no privacy on Facebook to begin with. The only reason for "privacy controls" is purely one of marketing - it's used to encourage people to spew their guts onto the site, under the guise of "privacy". Otherwise no site will be able to get much in the way of user data - unless you pretend there's some "privacy", people will be cautious.
  And why "privacy"? It's easy. First, there's the adage "don't post online what you don't want the world to know". Second, these sites are "social" - you're supposed to share. And sharing with friends is the same as sharing to the world. (Try keeping news like a new bably, marriage, or divorce amongst "friends only" - you'll find a lot of non-friends would've spread the news). Third, if you're not sharing, for what reason are you telling facebook for? "Only me" is a stupid security setting because if it's only for you, don't post it online!
  It's like keeping secrets. The best way is to not tell anyone.
11. Re:Will it? Yes. And here's why. by swillden · 2012-05-16 09:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Do you know that Facebook will have 1 shareholder with 55.8% of the voting shares?
  I am pretty sure that Facebook is required to maximize the profit of all its investors, despite the fact that one investor holds a majority stake. As CEO, Zuckerberg does have a duty to all of Facebook's investors, not just his own vision...
  I think, more accurately, that Zuckerberg has a duty to do what was promised in the IPO filings with the SEC. I haven't read them, so I don't know what's in there, but they could say he's planning to drive Facebook's share value to $0, and he'd have a legal obligation to try to do just that, and could be sued for trying to increase shareholder value.
  Now, that would obviously be silly, but the serious point is that if the plans laid out for potential shareholders to read include a focus on maintaining user privacy, or even just a focus on long-term value over short term value, then Zuckerberg would not be obligated to monetize as hard as he can. Rather he'd be obligated to balance the competing goals in accordance with shareholder expectations (which are defined by the filings). Even if they don't contain anything like that, it's still no slam dunk that he has to do whatever he can to maximize short-term profits. Abusing users' privacy too badly will erode the user base, which will damage the company long term.
  With all that said, the pattern that has been established is that Facebook takes two steps forward into user privacy abuse, then takes a half step back. Lather, rinse repeat. What I expect is for FB to continue pretty much exactly like it has, with the net effect being a gradual erosion.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-16 08:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google, unlike Facebook, actually makes money.
Lie Lie Lie by cpu6502 · 2012-05-16 08:08 · Score: 2

I fill my profile with lots of fake data (such as the wrong city and birthday). Or just leave it blank (don't list my workplace or career).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:Lie Lie Lie by sideslash · 2012-05-16 08:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I can picture your ads now: "Do you have compulsive lying disorder? Get relief now, ask your doctor about VeriPilium."
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by NerdmastaX · 2012-05-16 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

you are very misinformed, google came in a decade ago and helped the world rid itself of flashy graphic ads. google was faster on dialup as well. Facebook was a less flashy myspace with similar retarded games. Might i add that when facebook messes up they dont fix it till they get caught. when this ipo happens the money is gonna kill facebook
Re:is google any different? by cpu6502 · 2012-05-16 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or else he did a search for Acura to find the dealerships. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-16 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

What the HELL is it with this trend of new people having multi-paragraph posts up at the exact same time the article hits. Check the timestamps -- there's less than a minute between this post and the article going up. It's this account's first post, it's paragraphs long, it's up at the same time as the article, and it's telling you to buy Facebook stock. Draw your own conclusions.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-16 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Working in investment industry, I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares
When people in the "investment industry" start talking about buying shares in anything publicly, that's usually about the time the general public should run, screaming, in the opposite direction.
You go ahead and buy yourself a few thousand shares, 'Mr. Investment Industry.' Good luck with your pumping and dumping.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Bob9113 · 2012-05-16 08:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

Both Facebook and Google share many business practices and monetizing practices. While Google had the unfortunate timing for their IPO (2004) after dot com bubble burst, the exact same thing could had been said about them. Many slashdotters, however, still believe that Google does the right thing.
I'm not sure who these "Many Slashdotters" are that you refer to -- some sort of expert panel on the morality of corporations I guess -- but they certainly are ignorant, and haven't been reading the website for which they are named. Google has become quite bent, particularly relative to their starting point, and that subject is discussed regularly and extensively on these forums (typically with a few ignorant twits starting the discussion by saying, "But you all love Google!" followed by a chorus of, "Are you daft? No we don't."). From cozying up to the U.S. surveillance state to embracing censorship in China, Google has become far more morally flexible since their IPO.
And bear in mind, Google started off as a hard-core moralist corporation. They were the poster-boys for "what a scientist/moralist company should be" until Eric Schmidt and the public shareholders came along. Facebook is starting with no discernible principles to act as a rudder.
Of course, I agree with your assessment of the investment potential. But that says a great deal more about the flaws in our economic policies than it does about whether Facebook is good for long-term United States growth.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by localman57 · 2012-05-16 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't know about selling data, but their astroturfing unit seems to be running at full steam.

Take a look at the original post. I SAID LOOK AT IT! Holy shit! IT'S FUCKING BEAUTIFUL. The grammar and punctuation is impeccable. It's the longest, most intensive, best edited FIRST POST! I've ever seen. Complete with embedded links! Almost as if he had it typed and ready to paste in advance of this story. Oh, and it's the only story ever commented on by a brand new ID. Get bent, astroturfer. We like Google better than you. Suck on it.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-16 08:20 · Score: 2

Facebook is starting with no discernible principles to act as a rudder.
Based on the history of the company, I wouldn't say that's true at all. They've got lots of principles, just not very many decent ones. Certainly not as regards those poor saps using the service.
Re:is google any different? by MightyMartian · 2012-05-16 08:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Indeed, because the only other accusation is that Google is reading the old man's mind.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by eepok · 2012-05-16 08:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Ya, only if you know HISTORY. But this about the future, man. Progress. You have to look forward. Seize the day. BUY BUY BUY!
Ticketing, apps, subscriptions by Rob+Kaper · 2012-05-16 08:24 · Score: 2

Facebook is not just a social network, it's consumer groupware. Compare it to television or telephone, not to Myspace and other previous offerings focusing solely on the social factor.
I expect the following:
- provides ticketing for events.
- a store for media content and app content.
- even a premium subscription model to remove ads (hi Slashdot!).
Re:is google any different? by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-16 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or else he mentioned his fucking car in an email once.
But no, you're right, they've probably got their agents infiltrating the DMV as we speak!!! OH NOES, THE GOOGLE SPIDERS!!!! AIEIEEEEEE!!!!!!!
Tricky question by cheesecake23 · 2012-05-16 08:26 · Score: 2

Facebook Adds 96 Million Shares, Will Privacy Get Worse After IPO?
Another question I've been mulling over lately is: will Kim Kardashian become less private now that she's dating Kanye West?
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by vlm · 2012-05-16 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Don't know about selling data, but their astroturfing unit seems to be running at full steam.
Take a look at the original post. I SAID LOOK AT IT! Holy shit! IT'S FUCKING BEAUTIFUL. The grammar and punctuation is impeccable. It's the longest, most intensive, best edited FIRST POST! I've ever seen. Complete with embedded links! Almost as if he had it typed and ready to paste in advance of this story. Oh, and it's the only story ever commented on by a brand new ID. Get bent, astroturfer. We like Google better than you. Suck on it.
I can top that... google his name, it shows up nowhere on the entire internet except this /. story. If you're gonna astroturf, at least have the brains to use a name like "john doe" or "a5tr0turf3r".
Can someone with a FB account search for him on FB? I deleted my account well over a year ago so I can't search FB.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Rules of Effective Astroturfing: by CanHasDIY · 2012-05-16 08:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Step 1: Change the subject: Let's not discuss X, let's discuss Y instead!

Step 2: Play the 'victim.' - waaa, those evil privacy advocates are ruining teh internetz!

Step 3: Point the finger - 'we may be bad, but we're not as bad as *gasp* Google!

Step 4: If all else fails, insult the audience - "This could also very well be the reasons why geeks are bullied - if you treat other like shit, you will be treated like shit."

Well played, sir, well played...

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Jeng · 2012-05-16 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

When Facebook makes a change to their privacy policy they are more concerned with getting that information to their customers rather than being concerned of the privacy concerns of their product.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Xest · 2012-05-16 08:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

Okay so I know you're just another of those high UID, never posted before anti-Google troll-shills but I can answer this question:
"What I cannot understand is why Google gets a free pass on this while slashdotters absolutely hate Facebook."
There are a number of reasons, but for me they are:
Despite all the FUD your PR company likes to spread, for all the theoretical things Google has done wrong over the years I've never actually suffered anything detrimental as a result of Google's theoretically evil actions. I've never suffered spam, I've never had any problems. Contrast this to Facebook and the theoretical problems turn into actual problems - I have had Facebook illegaly sell my data in breach of the UK's data protection act, I have had it recommend people who it could only have associated with me by illegaly gathering data from elsewhere. I know these things for a fact because we're talking about data which I have not stored on Facebooks systems, e-mail addresses that I have only used in certain places and so forth.
Further, whilst Google certainly does do wrong, it also often tries hard to do right, in contrast I can't think of anything positive that's over and above it's business interests that Facebook has done. I've also yet to see anyone quite as obnoxious and who quite so desperately believes his own bullshit as the guy following the discussion at about 49minutes into this documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeOlO_2nddY
Still, it's fun watching him squirm.
Oh, it probably doesn't help that Google came from a couple of guys doing some university research, whilst Facebook came from a guy who stole and cheated left right and centre either. That's not really the greatest starting point for a company who wants to get all our data, whether given it honestly, or whether it's obtained it illegaly. On the illegality thing, here's a hint as to what I'm referring to: under the data protection acts of many countries, including (all?) those in Europe, a third party cannot give a company permission to hold your data, yet Facebook uses EXACTLY this method to gather data on people. The previous automatic opt in on allowing apps to gather friends data even if those friends haven't used that app and hence have no relationship with the 3rd party company in question is an example of this.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Xest · 2012-05-16 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh, and I forgot to add, perhaps it's also because Google doesn't need to hire shills to troll Slashdot?
It's ironic, your very employment answers your own question - the reason people hate Facebook more than Google is precisely because Facebook hires too many people like you.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by FrankSchwab · 2012-05-16 08:37 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought exactly the same thing when Google went IPO and the Investment Industry was pushing a stock price of $75. I convinced our investment club (remember those?) that they didn't have a business plan, had no obvious source of sufficient revenue to sustain the share valuation that was being discussed, and that we shouldn't buy in.
8 years later, it's above $600.

--
And the worms ate into his brain.
Who's buying? by escay · 2012-05-16 08:38 · Score: 2

The interwebs is filled with stories, articles and opinions about why getting in on the Facebook IPO is such a bad idea. I can't find a single piece that argues for buying FB shares now (if you do, can you please share?). So I'm wondering, if there is such an overwhelming negativity against the shares, what's driving this demand up and making fb add more shares?! brokerage firms are offering pre-orders for pre-screened buyers with a minimum number of orders and still are not guaranteeing issuance of shares. If so many people are saying don't do it, who are all the people who are doing it, and why? I find it hard to believe that so many people are actually ignoring the news and willing to put money down - surely there's something we're missing?
what's the pro argument for fb shares?

--
My sig has been answered.
1. Re:Who's buying? by KillaBeave · 2012-05-16 08:51 · Score: 2
  
  Sadly it seems to me that it's the same people that thought pets.com or whatever.com were were good bets, but only now they're slightly more informed. Back in the 90's it was "They're on the INTERNET! That's the FUTURE! CAN'T LOSE!!"
  
  Now it's "Wow they've got the web 2.0, app store, iWhatever and wear hoodies. The kids love them and there's billions of users ... CAN'T LOSE!!"
  
  Nevermind that the beauty of the web is a lack of lock-in ... especially for these free services. A new one will inevitably come out, and all it'll cost people is a few minutes to fill out a new profile. Hell this "new Facebook" will probably be seen as a great way to cull your friends list once and for all ... at least until the "new new Facebook" comes out.
  
  Wait a sec? Isn't Facebook just the new MySpace? So the "new Facebook" will really be the "new new MySpace?"
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-16 08:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can top that... google his name, it shows up nowhere on the entire internet except this /. story. If you're gonna astroturf, at least have the brains to use a name like "john doe" or "a5tr0turf3r".
Actually, this time, he actually did just that. "John Wiggenerstrom" == "Waggener Edstrom".
Trolling is an art. I miss the Chiropractor Troll, he was funnier.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by gorzek · 2012-05-16 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

People get paid to do this, obviously, and Slashdot tolerates it because they know what side their bread is buttered on.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by who_stole_my_kidneys · 2012-05-16 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would seriously suggest buying Facebook shares
That's only if your a short term investor who has the capitol to put up for a large buy, the regular people that don't have access to those types of funds should stay away as FaceBook as a long term investment, is insane. It will slowly die out just as Myspace did after it was bought and pressured to make more money. In the short term the price will continue to go up until something new pops up, users will mass migrate, and the revenues will dry up like grandmas vagina.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by localman57 · 2012-05-16 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

And dozens of other companies that fit the same description are gone. Don't doubt yourself. Don't invest in a company if you don't understand how they're going to make money.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by timeOday · 2012-05-16 08:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Google, unlike Facebook, actually makes money.

In the year before its IPO (2003), google profited $106M.
In the year before its IPO (2011), facebook profited $1,000M.
Hateful geek comment by pesho · 2012-05-16 08:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

Currently there are amount 800 million people (a very impressive number!), but there is room for over 6 billion more. And those won't be joining MySpace, Google+ or Diaspora, they will join Facebook because that's where everyone is.
Last time I checked 800 million is way less than 6 billion (about 13% of 6 billion), which kind of contradicts the statement that 'that's where everyone is'

Working in investment industry, I ...
Oh is that where the fuzzy math comes from?
Before I reach for my wallet, could mister financial industry explain how facebook's revenue (around 1bilion) justifies the current valuation of 100 billion? Short of making every single living person on the planet a facebook member and then quadrupling their net income per user (currently at about $1) I don't see how any investment made now will break even in the next 5 years.
1. Re:Hateful geek comment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-16 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  People who are wondering about Facebook's end game can't see the forest for the trees. The IPO *is* the end game. The absurd valuation is paraded around like a supercar, like it's a sign of power and not of a huge loan that needs to be repaid.
That's just the free float by JazzHarper · 2012-05-16 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

By increasing the size of the IPO, they are offering closer to 15% of the shares, rather than 10%.
At a price of $34/share, the market cap will be north of $120 billion, and the price on Day 1 could spike much higher than that, when all the rubes jump into the secondary market.
Facebook may never again have a market capitalization greater than it will on its first day of trading.
There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth by Surt · 2012-05-16 09:03 · Score: 2

Worldwide ad spending. The only thing they can sell right now is ... you. But the buyers are spending less than a trillion worldwide annually. That's the total market. Their annual revenue is already about 4B. Realistically, they should be able to grab no more than about double their attention share, and what is that, maybe 5% (generously). That puts about a 25x growth cap on facebook, and assumes that they successfully reach basically everyone who ever sees advertising.
Personally I'll be shocked if they can grow revenue 10x.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
1. Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth by vlm · 2012-05-16 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  IF they never sell anything but advertising.
  But what if they start selling background check services to corporations? Or live monitoring of employees/customers/competitors/whatever?
  "Peeking" into teens life for parents (and teachers?) for a hefty fee. Fear sells!
  Market research is valuable (FB what car colors do people prefer? or whatever)
  Style. Like zynga's virtual stuff, maybe your fb profile can look like an old myspace page full of animations if you send FB $5 for each little animated taggy / yellow ribbon to show your support of Chinese yellow ribbon mfgrs or whatever that moronity is supposed to mean.
  If you go newspaper model, then yeah all they have is ad sales. But they can sell a whole lot more than that.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:There's a hard upper limit to facebook's growth by gatfirls · 2012-05-16 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  A whole lot of people seem to forget that there's a ton of cash floating around FB for the games. I recal reading they get like a 30% rip on every zynga transaction so it's probably the same for all others. Just zynga alone makes up like 15% of their revenue. I don't think they will grow all that much going forward personally but I wanted to point out that ad revenue is not their only source.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by AngryDeuce · 2012-05-16 09:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Myspace launched in 2003, was bought by News Corporation in 2005 for $580 million, was totally irrelevant by 2008, and was sold again in 2011 to Justin Timberlake for only $35 million.
It seems to me that Google is a huge exception to an otherwise pretty bankable rule.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by KhabaLox · 2012-05-16 09:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, Facebook's profit margin and debt-equity ratio are about the same as Google's. However, their revenue and profit are around 1/10 of Google (IIRC) while their estimated valuation is about 1/5 (?), so they are likely overvalued.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-05-16 09:10 · Score: 2

I shit on Google, too. They once had the world's best search for the www.
Now? Let us both laugh and cry.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
FB is going down. Hard. by spirit_fingers · 2012-05-16 09:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Facebook is caught between a rock and a hard place with regard to user privacy. They already take a lot of flack from users who don't like what they perceive as Facebook's lax privacy protection. Facebook can't simply dilute it further without risking a flood of protest from its users. It can't afford that. That's not to mention the various state and federal privacy regulations already in place that will also constrain them.
Oh, and don't count out Google+ as competition just yet. Google isn't going to declare defeat in the social media space any time soon. They recently completely revamped the Google+ interface and have shown that they're in it for the long haul. They will be waiting for Zuckerberg & Co. to stumble and give users an excuse to jump ship. I suspect they won't have to wait long.
Of course, the investors will be howling for Facebook to bring in the numbers, especially now that GM has announced yesterday that they are cancelling all of their advertising on FB due to its lack of effectiveness. You can bet that move has caught the attention of every other large advertiser. Facebook is in trouble. They have very little maneuverability to enhance their revenue stream and a lot of pressure to do so. Something's got to give and I predict it will not be pretty for either FB's bottom line or their stock price.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-16 09:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the OP typed up eight paragraphs in response to a Firehose submission just in case it got posted and then sat there ready to claim first post when it did, and he's not getting paid, he's just trolling, I think that's a good deal more self-humiliating than the people "falling for it".
Re:Why is there so few comments today? by idontgno · 2012-05-16 09:56 · Score: 2

More like, "Waiting for Diablo III to let me log in."

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:is google any different? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-05-16 10:38 · Score: 2

Hell, google could mine your email for "Shipped to" and get your address right more often than not.
Re:Probably by bipbop · 2012-05-16 15:47 · Score: 2

Can you explain why that's the safest way? It's not obvious to me, and I'm curious.
Re:Let's compare this to Google's IPO by tehcyder · 2012-05-17 03:41 · Score: 2

I shit on Google, too. They once had the world's best search for the www.
Now? Let us both laugh and cry.
Isn't the problem that they still have the world's best search for the www?

I have no love for Google, but to choose some Bing-based alternative is even worse (on an ideological level).

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it