Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Faces High-Level Staff Exodus

Posted by timothy on from the more-time-with-family dept.

angry tapir writes "It has been troubled times for Facebook since the social network's IPO in May. There has been speculation that Facebook could suffer a talent drain in the wake of the IPO, and now the organization has lost four of its high-level managers the space of a week: Ethan Beard, director of platform partnerships; Kate Mitic, platform marketing director; Jonathan Matus, mobile platform marketing manager; and Ben Blumenfeld, design manager, have all resigned from the company."

60 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Walking wounded... by wermske · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really don't give a damn about Facebook (the firm). The survivors of event triggered churn (following milestone events) can be painful for the remaining staff.

    Additionally this business phenomenon presents a new challenge for both inexperienced managers and leaders that have become intoxicated by constant build-grow success. Add in the additional inconvenience, ramp time, and dollar cost of finding and onboarding replacement staff, event related staff churn can have a damaging effect on the morale and productivity of the existing workforce (and impact their resumes).

    The walking wounded; however, can choose to affect the situation or be affected by it. The survivors and thrivers will confront this challenge and exploit the opportunity for what it is... a chance to learn and grow.

  2. And this is surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd bail too from a ship that just went over a cliff.

    1. Re:And this is surprising? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I especially want to bail out of the ship when the SEC is going to start sniffing around.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:And this is surprising? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      In fact, it's a derailed ship which has been driven into a ditch, is now stuck in a nosedive, and is about to go over a cliff.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:And this is surprising? by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your expectation that the regulators exist to actually root out and punish fraud in the market is touching but quite naive, especially in light that regulators have done absolutelly nothing at all to punish market-mispractices by large companies in the last 20 years (and when they do something, the miniscule fines they impose are usually less than the profits made by the companies breaking the law).

      Given the size of Facebook and that the lead bank in their IPO was Morgan Stanley, expect the SEC to do absolutelly nothing at all.

      On the other hand, given that Facebook stock still has a Price-Earnings per share above 50 (the typical PE for high growth Tech companies is about 25), expect a further fall in price. A better explanation for the exodus of several high-level managers with over-bloated but meaningless titles just as they become allowed to sell their stock is that they've been holding off from leaving a drifting ship until they could get their paws on hard cash.

  3. And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was the plan all along. Cash out and move on. It's a shallow company with no real long term potential. People are fickle, color me surprised.

    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One last thing I just thought of. They may be contractually limited to short sell the shares while working for the company. So if they quit, they can make more money as the stock falls from a short sale.

      This. It's called being short against the box, and while it cannot be (easily) used to defer or reduce taxes, it's a perfectly legal hedge against long stock.

      The lockup period prevents you from selling the stock the day the company goes public. Company policy prevents you from going short. (I suppose you could argue that being short against the box is a market-neutral position, but your company's policy may prohibit you from doing so as a condition of employment).

      So you have a stock in which you want to preserve your IPO-day gains, but you can't sell it, and you can't go short against the box and still keep your job. If the stock's high enough (and with the $FB IPO, we could be talking "Fuck You Money" here), a valid strategy to preserve those gains is to quit your job, go short against the box for 3-6 months until the lockup expires, and liquidate both sides of the trade.

    2. Re:And? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another reason for mass executive exodus is so they CAN have more opportunities in the future. Its good not to be there at the end game. These guys want to go on to be C?Os or board members elsewhere, to do that they need to be able to maintain the fiction things were fine at Facebook when they left. The don't want to be on the list of people who ran it into the ground.

      Naturally most normal people can see thru this, but star-y eye'd near do wells, in their desperate greed will toss tons of money at these people in hopes of getting their own Zukerburg like pay out. Of course it won't work out but that has never stopped anyone on either side of the equation.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:And? by gutnor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      High level exec would have known of the coming IPO. Most of those who planned to leave have probably delayed their departure until after the IPO.

      In other sectors it is common to have departure at all levels after the bonus, not really because they think that the bonus sucks, just because "you don't quit before bonus time". That is not really a proof of anything at all.

  4. When the avalanche has started by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is too late for the pebbles to vote. The current management team may not be the people to monetize the company. Eventually the shareholders will hold the board's feet to the fire and they'll really start to sell every single fact about you to anyone who's willing to pay. Think Facebook has privacy problems now?

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:When the avalanche has started by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eventually the shareholders will hold the board's feet to the fire

      False.

      Even though he owns a small number of shares, Zuckerberg owns a large majority of the voting shares. He has complete control of the company.

      Many other companies have a dual-class share structure allowing a small minority to retain control with a small financial stake. Generally speaking, it sucks, and companies with this kind of share structure don't tend to do very well. Don't buy their stock.

    2. Re:When the avalanche has started by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Eventually the shareholders will hold the board's feet to the fire

      How will they do that? Zuckerberg outvotes them all, thanks to the dual-class stock structure.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:When the avalanche has started by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can I just say "dear Mark; Class; you make Billy boy Gates look like a choir boy. Make sure you have some good lawyers".

      How the hell does he get away with that.

      It's an old, and fairly common, way of setting up the voting structure of media companies. By "old", I mean 100+ years. The theory, in the case of the newspaper companies where it started, is that the company needs "editorial freedom". You wouldn't want a newspaper to be told what news to print by its biggest shareholders, so a stock voting structure that leaves control of the paper in the hands of some people who are considered to be trustworthy is a good idea.

      In the context of tech companies, Google pioneered the use of the dual-class structure, as far as I know. It's possible Google wasn't really the first, but they were the first to make a big splash doing it. Part of Google's argument was that it was important that search results also have editorial freedom, that Google not be in a position to be forced by big shareholders to remove or bury search results that they don't like, or promote results they do like. Even more, Google argued that being beholden to shareholders was bad for fast-moving companies, because it forced them to focus on short-term profitability to the exclusion of all else. Google's founders wanted the freedom to ignore short-term profitability where they thought it was more important to focus on the long term, or even to focus on other issues entirely. So, for those reasons Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt have a controlling interest in Google, able to collectively outvote the rest of the shareholders combined.

      In fact, they recently recognized that employee stock grants and some future desire to raise more capital by offering more stock on the public markets might at some point dilute their ownership, so they have announced a plan to do a two-for-one split, essentially, with all of the newly-created shares being non-voting. This third class of stock, which has no votes at all, will be used rather than the common one-vote-per-share stock for employee bonuses and possibly for additional public offerings. There are also some provisions in the agreement that require the founders to sell their 10-vote shares rather than others if they want to sell any stock (though the shares convert to one-vote shares when sold), in order to motivate them to retain their ownership stake if they want to retain their control. I don't know if the SEC has signed off on the plan or not, yet, but it's unlikely to be denied. Of course, the change had to pass a shareholder vote, but Larry, Sergey and Eric outvote the rest of the shareholders combined, so that was no problem.

      After Google did it, many other web-focused technology companies have adopted dual-class voting structures in their IPOs, and Facebook followed suit.

      So, no lawyers will be necessary. Or not for very long, anyway. The legality of this structure has been firmly established for many decades. The bottom line is that shareholders knew all of this when they decided to buy in, so the shareholders have already signed off on the structure.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  5. Rats deserting a stinking ship... by EdIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've often heard the term, "where there is smoke there is fire".

    This makes me wonder if there was something strange going on with the IPO. A lot of pissed off people who lost a lot of money. One one hand I can't feel sorry for people that lost money since anybody with a brain could figure out Facebook was not worth that much. On the other hand, if there were any shenanigans, I don't think people at Facebook should get away with it.

    It is pretty strange to see that much high level "talent" leave. Suspicious is another word.

    1. Re:Rats deserting a stinking ship... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as you can make about 75K from someone else you can do quite well for yourself. Manage your money. That's the key to pretty much the entirety of being successful.

      My dad made 74k a year on a team of guys who all made 74k a year (this was about a decade ago). Some of them bought boats, some cottages, some had expensive wives etc. The ones who bought stuff with resale value (the cottages for example, or mutual funds and bonds) are all doing fine in retirement, they can afford holidays, etc. The ones who bought boats, and planes (and god help them, both), the ones who landed wives with expensive tastes in things that are worth nothing, they're struggling now.

      Working for someone else does have significant advantages, pension plans, fixed hours that sort of thing. When you work for yourself you can very easily slide into working 12 hours a day and not having vacation time, and still not making very much money. And if you get sick, your whole business can fall apart, and you might not have customers to go back to as they've found someone else.

      Ultimately, it's up to you to manage your money, if you can do that you can manage your business or you can manage your paycheque. Working for yourself is always better than a bad boss, and working for yourself *can* be better than a good boss, but not always.

  6. we all tried to do it by TheRealWheatley · · Score: 5, Funny

    they're just going over to g+, until they realize that none of their friends are following them and head back to facebook

  7. Wha? by matt-fu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fewer managers. You say that like it's a bad thing.

  8. It won't kill FB by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The exodus of the 14 execs won't kill FB

    How many execs have left Yahoo ?

    Is Yahoo still around ?

    FB won't die until it runs out of cash. As long as it has cash left, it will go on, just like Yahoo

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:It won't kill FB by zero.kalvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but Yahoo is not going to improve , unless something extraordinary happens Yahoo will die.

    2. Re:It won't kill FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And FB will have cash until the users stop showing up.

      I'm curious about how the exodus will happen. I don't see it going to G+, really. I think Diaspora died along with one of the young founders. FB copycats are a dime a dozen, but haven't heard any word in the way of compelling alternatives. Perhaps individual services will eat away at them through mobile...

    3. Re:It won't kill FB by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Informative

      If AOL is still around and kicking today, it's pretty hard to believe that Yahoo will just up and die. It's important to note that Yahoo still has 10s of millions of active email users, the best fantasy sports platform on the internet, a pretty solid website in Flickr, and a bunch of other random shit. AOL has much less, yet somehow stays alive.

    4. Re:It won't kill FB by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The exodus of high level leaders at same time, however can definitely kill a company. Think of it this way, if several generals or even majors of an army quit at the same time, it leads the army directionless for a fair bit. If the competition is shrewd, this will be the perfect time to throw in some innovative twists and come up with something new. And if that happens, cash, which essentially comes from advts. will dry up instantly. And that will lead to even more mass exodus. One way to beat vicious cycles is to not to get into one.

    5. Re:It won't kill FB by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How much are MySpace and Digg worth now?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:It won't kill FB by a0me · · Score: 5, Informative

      How much are MySpace and Digg worth now?

      Digg was bought a month ago for $500,000. To put things in perspective, back in 2008 it was valued at $200 Million.

    7. Re:It won't kill FB by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If AOL is still around and kicking today, it's pretty hard to believe that Yahoo will just up and die. It's important to note that Yahoo still has 10s of millions of active email users, the best fantasy sports platform on the internet, a pretty solid website in Flickr, and a bunch of other random shit. AOL has much less, yet somehow stays alive.

      Agreed. Compare, however, with FB who is essentially a one-trick pony. It's a pretty amazing trick, I'll grant you that, but still...

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    8. Re:It won't kill FB by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your analogy is flawed

      In a real life military scenario, an exodus of several general will create mass confusion and drastic drop of morale amongst the soldiers

      On the other hand, in the case of fb, even if 90% of the exec decide to leave, you think that will do anything to the fb users?

      Nope, zilth, nothing

      Them users will still use fb to tell the world when they go to toilet, what they ate for breakfast and what they did with their gf/bf the night before, like usual
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    9. Re:It won't kill FB by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why do people call high level execs "talent" anyway?

    10. Re:It won't kill FB by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And FB will have cash until the users stop showing up.

      True, and false

      True - fb will see a big drop in their income if all their users stop showing up

      But that will almost never happen - due to the fact of the sheer number of users fb has gathered

      Once you achieved a critical mass, like what fb has gotten itself, it'll not be that easy to topple it --- Ask yourself if Microsoft going to close its door tomorrow, that Bill Gates is no longer on the helm, and Steve Ballmer still throwing chairs around

      And false - Remember fb has garnered many billions of $$, and if they do not repeat stunts like what they did in the $1 Billion acquisition of Instagram - fb will still be around for quite some time to come
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    11. Re:It won't kill FB by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And why do people call high level execs "talent" anyway?

      Dear Sir,

      You have asked a pertinent question

      It's a social hierarchy thingy - When you're an exec of a company as famous as fb (or M$ or Google or Apple) ppl will automatically associate you with the successes of that company
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    12. Re:It won't kill FB by Grayhand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Might not kill Facebook but it isn't going to help their stock. If I was foolish enough to have bought FB stock I'd be pretty panicky around now. Feels like rats leaving a sinking ship. It's feeling like one of those stocks that will eventually hit a $1 or less. All that's keeping the stock out of the toilet is they have income but it's not enough to justify the stock price. If the income drops sharply there's nothing to keep it out of a death spiral. I'm not talking about tomorrow but in five or so years if they don't improve there outlook it's going to look bleak. If Facebook looses it's position, which it's likely to as cool and trendy, it's user base will drop and so will it's income. If my retirement depended on Facebook stock I think I'd consider playing the lottery. It's just looking more and more like a tech bubble.

    13. Re:It won't kill FB by Heretic2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      $500K was only for a portion of the company, like the domain name. The patent portfolio was sold in the 8 figure range to someone else. Digg essentially got divvied up 3 different ways, and people only quote the smaller of the transactions... Anyway, it wasn't worth anywhere near 9 figures, but let's be honest: there's been an valuation bubble going on.

    14. Re:It won't kill FB by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I was foolish enough to have bought FB stock I'd be pretty panicky around now.

       
      LOL !!
       
      We were allotted a part of fb for something that we'd done for them
       
      All the shares under my name (not that much, btw) got sold out the first day of the IPO
       
      Based on my own experience (since the 1970's in the tech field) I do not see any bright future for fb
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    15. Re:It won't kill FB by uncqual · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The departing leaders also take the best people with them over the following few weeks/months (esp. in California where signing something saying you won't work for a competitor for two years is laughed out of court in a summary judgement).

      Smart folks at FB realize that hype didn't work and every step FB takes to monetize their users will alienate them. Their only ace in the hole is that there isn't yet a good FB replacement for the 2010's -- but that's why we have Stanford!

      The exodus this early should be very alarming to FB.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    16. Re:It won't kill FB by stretch0611 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The exodus of high level leaders at same time, however can definitely kill a company. Think of it this way, if several generals or even majors of an army quit at the same time, it leads the army directionless for a fair bit.

      However, in this analogy, Zuckerberg is a dictator. He has majority voting share and it is obvious he does what he wants. (Think Instagram, which was done by Zuckerberg before he told the board.)

      When the voice at the top is the only one that gets heard, it really doesn't matter how many underlings leave, even if they are high-level.

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    17. Re:It won't kill FB by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Diaspora is the Linux desktop of social networking, except not actually useful or secure.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    18. Re:It won't kill FB by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I will assume that by nice you mean rational and the competent. Unlike the very top, mid high-level positions are ones filled with people who are actually good at what they do. And these are the guys who left. The ones stepping in, will quite likely be less competent by definition. And you are assuming that the new guy has exactly the same vision, idea and team-relationship. These are people, not cogs. You cannot just pick up the next guy in queue, and fill up the position and expect to have things go on same as before, normally. Normally organizations are designed to deal with occasional such hiccups. But several of these at once, would be the equivalent of multiple cardiac arrests at once. You might pretty much assume that the top management knew something we didn't and decided to cash in, while going was good, since they decided that after that point things would only go downhill. There is no other explanation for the entire IPO fiasco.

    19. Re:It won't kill FB by flappinbooger · · Score: 5, Funny

      True - fb will see a big drop in their income if all their users stop showing up

      But that will almost never happen - due to the fact of the sheer number of users fb has gathered

      Once you achieved a critical mass, like what fb has gotten itself, it'll not be that easy to topple it --- Ask yourself if Microsoft going to close its door tomorrow, that Bill Gates is no longer on the helm, and Steve Ballmer still throwing chairs around

      This is true - all of my vague acquaintances and high school classmates who I didn't like then will always need a place to tell me what they're making for supper tonight and ... later ... tell me how it tasted and how much they love their spouse / kids / pet.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    20. Re:It won't kill FB by edremy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same reason they call porn actors/actresses "talent"

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    21. Re:It won't kill FB by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. AOL is around because they own lots of popular media properties that they did not rebrand.

    22. Re:It won't kill FB by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm curious about how the exodus will happen. I don't see it going to G+, really.
      Perhaps people will go out and make real friends.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    23. Re:It won't kill FB by orgelspieler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Raising capitol, lovely spelling mistake that is very revealing of the way things work in big business :}

      I suppose the only solution to such intractable corruption is razing capitol.

  9. Surprise! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The most amazing thing about this whole sad saga is that not one single person foresaw Facebooks IPO problems. Not one I tells ya!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  10. Re:Frankly, I saw this coming by taxman_10m · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I used to think that, but lately it seems like Facebook has become what I used to use email for. I use Facebook to send messages to friends and also coordinate events with them. And my actual email is mostly spam.

  11. Who's Zuckerberg's alter ego? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 5, Funny

    Facebook's biggest problem as a young company is Zuckerberg has never had a corporate alter ego. The most prominent of the newer information companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google were started by partners such as Steve Jobs/Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates/Paul Allen, and Larry Page/Sergey Brin. Like a vanishing twin, one of the partners might eventually leave the company, but in their early histories, none of these companies was dominated by a single alpha-geek but by a Batman and Robin or Laurel and Hardy dynamic duo.

    1. Re:Who's Zuckerberg's alter ego? by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately for Microsoft, they lost both Professor X and Cyclops and have had to make due with Matter Eater Lad for the past decade.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  12. What's new? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every tech company is losing staff, because none are willing to hire junior-level workers and train them. So companies keep competing over the same fixed number of people. And the quickest way to get a raise is to jump ship. So there you have it.

    It's not just tech, either. There are lots of college-educated bartenders these days, because every "entry level" position requires 3 years of experience. It's absurd.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  13. Re:Do we really care? by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, it compiles toa single 1.5GB C++ binary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HipHop_for_PHP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Technical_aspects

  14. Re:Love fb by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you are trolling.

    I love facebook. It's an awesome idea. It'll survive and thrive.

    I despise facebook. Its got potential as a concept. Social networks will survive and thrive -- but hopefully facebook will crash and burn to be replaced by something good.

    Get some fresh minds working on more cool shit.

    If your entire platform is the shit that is privacy invasion and advertising no matter what you build on it, it will eventually sink into that shit. Start over. Do it differently.

    Facebook has changed all our lives whether you want to admit it or not.

    It actually has had virtually zero impact on mine; but then I declined to get an account.

    The sum total of its impact on me is that i see little blue "f" icons on a bunch of stuff that i ignore, and companies jibber about their facebook pages instead of their websites now. I don't visit their fb pages... and nothing of value was lost.

  15. Re:Frankly, I saw this coming by vux984 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My sister tried that - once.

    I don't have a facebook account and refused to get one.

    The whole platform falls on its face as an event organization platform if even one key person refuses to sign up to having their personal lives data mined.

  16. Re:Frankly, I saw this coming by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That is actually the initial trigger to drive the popularity of other newer social networks. Each time a person tries to coordinate via a social network, only to get refusal and rejection with the recommendation of an alternate network, that person is motivated to try the alternate network and if they get enjoy the new network try to shift their other friends to it, 'using the old social network'. Fascinating isn't the old fad social network actually accelerates it's demise but facilitating the mass transfer of people to the new fad social network.

    Facebook has got on the nose, seen as being old and now flooded with wanna be, has been teens, still trying to hang onto their youth. This seems to be the ultimate killer of social networks, the ageing of their users and users seeking to escape unappealing contacts for what ever reason.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  17. And nothing of value was lost by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    director of platform partnerships

    platform marketing director

    mobile platform marketing manager

    design manager

    Sorry, but those mostly sound like made up bullshit job titles.

  18. Re:Love fb by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well considering how many people use FB, I guess in your mind most of the adult population is "feeble-minded". Arrogant much?

    FB is a pretty smart idea; only a fool would say otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that FB is the greatest possible implementation of that idea. It has a lot of problems; the biggest problem is that of monetization. Sure, it's kinda cool to have some big online meeting place to find all your friends and post dumb pictures and links and chit-chat about it all, but someone's gotta pay the bills to keep it all running, and people posting silly comments about cat pictures and pictures of their kids isn't exactly a big money-maker, and people tend to get turned off by too much advertising, so while that can be used to bring in revenue, if you overdo it, it'll backfire, plus it's not hard for people to block ads with things like ABP, making advertising even less valuable.

    The other problem I see is that FB just isn't that well done. For instance, suppose I want to look up someone I knew way back in high school to see what he or she is up to these days. If they have an uncommon name, no problem, just search for that name and they'll pop up if they have a FB account. But what if their name is John or Julie Smith? Good luck finding the person you're looking for there. Now, you'd think that you could just narrow it down with some keywords or something (e.g. school names they've attended, towns or states they've lived in, etc.); but no, the FB people aren't smart enough to implement that apparently.

  19. Re:Frankly, I saw this coming by SolemnLord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The whole platform falls on its face as an event organization platform if even one key person refuses to sign up to having their personal lives data mined.

    The event was doomed to fail anyway, if the organizers can't figure out how to keep one "hold-out" (for lack of a better word) in the loop through other means.

  20. Re:Besides... by schnell · · Score: 4, Funny

    So does being a "C/C#/C++ Programmer" make you some kind of big shot?

    By virtue of having three consecutive alphanumeric Cs in your job title, you would outrank everyone else in the company. Unless of course they hired a CCCCEO.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  21. Re:Do we really care? by suy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do we really care?

    What's this FaceBook thing anyway?

    Does it compile into native code or P-code?

    Fun fact: FaceBook uses HipHop, a tool they developed themselves to convert PHP code to C++, and then compile it to native code.

    And the craziest thing is that they compile everything into a single 1.5 GB binary:

    Because Facebook's entire code base is compiled down to a single binary executable, the company's deployment process is quite different from what you'd normally expect in a PHP environment. Rossi told me that the binary, which represents the entire Facebook application, is approximately 1.5GB in size. When Facebook updates its code and generates a new build, the new binary has to be pushed to all of the company's servers.

    So, yeah, FaceBook compiles to native code! :-)

  22. Of course. Lockup just ended. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Much employee-owned stock couldn't be sold until the first lockup period ended. Which it just did. So, given Facebook's declining stock price, it's time to cash out. Of course they're quitting. Facebook is profitable, but the stock is overpriced by an order of magnitude or so.

    Lockups are far shorter than they used to be. When I cashed out of Autodesk in the 1980s, insiders had a 2-year lockup on restricted stock. And you had to pay taxes when you exercised an option, even though you couldn't sell for another two years. That was before "deregulation", and kept insiders from cashing out before the company tanked. Now it's 90 to 277 days. This encourages hyping the stock, taking the money, and running.

  23. Re:Love fb by Conspire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook was never a "unique" idea. It was successful viral spam effort. Does anyone remember? It got its first viral thrust as a SPAM email sent out to a stolen database of students!

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
  24. Good thing? by adenied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the design manager was the one who has made some of the UI decisions for Facebook over the last year or two maybe it's best he departs. Facebook is convenient for me for keeping in touch with a lot of people I know but I haven't heard anyone say anything good about their user interface design in a very long time. I don't really have any ill will towards anyone at Facebook (I have a number of friends who work there) but perhaps this is a good thing.

  25. This might be for the best by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this exodus can delay or reverse the forced conversion to that gawd-awful "Timeline", then it's all to the good.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  26. Of course they're leaving. by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me explain how this works (having gone through an IPO at a company where I worked years ago):

    1) founders of company want to generate some cash.
    2) founders hire a bunch of execs and engineers promising the company will go public and everyone wiil get options at pre IPO price.
    3) dopes take the jobs.
    4) company goes public, stock price soars, people start dreaming about what they will do with their newly minted wealth.
    5) reality sets in- founders are the only ones able to exercise their options, everyone else has to wait to be vested in 5 years.
    6) founders sell off their stock, generating the cash they sought, leave everyone else twisting in the wind.
    7) Now-wiser execs realize their options won't ever be worth anything and jump off the sinking ship while they can.

    It has been done so many times you'd think people would be wise to this scam by now, but it keeps working over and over.