Zuckerberg: Betting On HTML5 Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg: Betting On HTML5 Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday September 12, 2012 @12:10AM from the passing-on-the-mega-death-ray-may-have-been-wrong-too dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking yesterday at TechCrunch Disrupt, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that the company's stock performance was disappointing. He also made an interesting remark about Facebook's development efforts over the past couple of years: 'The biggest mistake we made as a company was betting too much on HTML5 as opposed to native. It just wasn't ready.' According to Mashable, 'the benefits of cross-platform development weren't enough to outweigh the downsides of HTML5, which pulls in data much more slowly than native code, and is much less stable. ... Now, Zuckerberg says, Facebook is focused on continuing to improve the native mobile experience on iOS, as well as bringing a native app to Android.'"

290 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Correction... by war4peace · 2012-09-12 00:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
There, fixed that for him.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
1. Re:Correction... by Grantbridge · 2012-09-12 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook. They managed to sell the company for twice the current market price! Anyone who had facebook shares before the IPO (which is who facebook was doing the IPO for) did rather well out of the deal.
2. Re:Correction... by somersault · 2012-09-12 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, why? Didn't it make him, you know, rather rich?
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
3. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for him.
  You meant: The IPO Was Investors Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for you.
4. Re:Correction... by synapse7 · 2012-09-12 00:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I fully agree with you, making a billion dollars over night is terrible, absolutely terrible, I sure as hell wouldn't have done that.
5. Re:Correction... by rudy_wayne · 2012-09-12 00:24 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Company-wise, their IPO certainly was a bigger mistake than using HTML5 in iOS.
  The IPO was inevitable and unavoidable. It was a bad idea, but it was inevitable and unavoidable.
  First, Facebook had already taken more than a billion dollars from investors, including half a billion from Goldman-Sachs alone. So that means that an IPO (aka pump and dump) was inevitable.
  Second, Facebook is the new MySpace and everyone knows it. An IPO (aka pump and dump) is the fastest way to cash in on the latest fad before the bubble pops.
6. Re:Correction... by dnaumov · 2012-09-12 00:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Zuckerberg meant: The IPO Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for him.
  You meant: The IPO Was Investors Biggest Mistake.
  There, fixed that for you.
  You meant: The IPO Was The Biggest Mistake of Speculators Trying to Get Rich Quick Off an IPO Pop.
  The investors who actually SOLD shares on the IPO made out like bandits.
7. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  From that perspective yes, but for the everyday work at facebook it may have been a disaster since the new owners might force the leaders to spend their time on the next quarterly report instead of taking care of operations.
8. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  I am your anonymous coward parent... and i stand corrected!
9. Re:Correction... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-09-12 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  The purpose of stock offerings is to raise money. It was a huge success. If you lost money on it that's because you paid too high a multiple on Facebook sales and profits.
10. Re:Correction... by Conspire · 2012-09-12 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, no matter how much money from whom.....I thought that one person had control......no? That was the claim
  
  --
  Real men don't need signitures!!!
11. Re:Correction... by leonardluen · 2012-09-12 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  And the most important thing, the IPO put a LOT of money into facebooks own coffers. Facebooks IPO was a resounding success for the company. they sold out every share they were offering.
  The only thing the IPO was a mistake for were the speculators that thought it was a good idea to buy an overhyped stock that current available financial data was absolutely unable to justify the price they were asking.
  i could even link some of my past comments, saying how overvalued i thought it was. however i still don't think it has hit bottom. eventually they may be worth what they were asking at their IPO, but they definitely aren't there yet.
  the only problem the price drop may pose is a retention issue for some of the exec's who were compensated with too much stock, and now see it just losing value. similar to what Zynga is currently going through.
12. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't it make him, you know, rather rich?
  Unless he sold his shares at the high mark, no. In fact after the IPO his net worth will have crashed.
  Holding shares != rich.
13. Re:Correction... by arth1 · 2012-09-12 00:58 · Score: 2
  
  Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook. They managed to sell the company for twice the current market price!
  That doesn't mean it was a success for Facebook, only that it was a success for:
  
  Anyone who had facebook shares before the IPO (which is who facebook was doing the IPO for) did rather well out of the deal.
  Don't confuse the share holders with the company. Collect all the share holders and put them together, and they'll produce nothing. The value of the company is its assets (physical and intellectual), employees, customers and in true evolutionary spirit, its ability to adapt.
  The money the IPO brought increases assets short term, but long term, the investors want their money back, and more. Unless a company can continuously outgrow the investors' increasing demands, it will, in the end, get the short stick.
14. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  It was a success as a one-time infusion of cash. The biggest mistake is that they over sold it and will have a hard time 'going back to the well' to get another round of investors to buy in. See the way LinkedIn handled their IPO and were able to go back to investors again and again in the following months to raise capital with a lot more good will.
15. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Zuck holds 57% of the "voting" stock and specifically told everyone in the IPO prospectus that he wasn't going to listen to them. Nobody has the ability to oust him and he isn't leaving on his own. The guy knows what he's doing.
  I knew what he was doing, too, which is why I didn't buy any shares, and will continue to not buy shares until they're at around $10.
16. Re:Correction... by canadiannomad · 2012-09-12 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  their IPO certainly was a bigger mistake than using HTML5 in iOS.
  I don't know... I think their biggest mistake was timeline. I guess I'm a privacy nut for not wanting to so easily share my entire history with everyone who is considered a "friend"(past, present or future) on facebook. I know it has put a damper on a lot of my friends and what they post. I for one have relegated it to a means to monitor those who post photos with me so I can untag myself or request it get taken down.
  
  --
  Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
17. Re:Correction... by hattig · 2012-09-12 01:04 · Score: 2
  
  The fact is that Facebook's use of HTML5 was distinctly sub-par, thus making their apps incredibly frustrating to use. Losing all the data, no apparent caching, etc, on a platform that you are using on a mobile device that often loses connectivity. Madness.
18. Re:Correction... by Picardo85 · 2012-09-12 01:07 · Score: 2
  
  Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook. They managed to sell the company for twice the current market price! Anyone who had facebook shares before the IPO (which is who facebook was doing the IPO for) did rather well out of the deal.
  Actually they managed to sell the company at ten times the market price. The estimated value of the company according to valuation terms used in finance would have been $10bn and the company sold for over $100bn. The valuation is made on the basis of the profits a company is making and market price is a max of 10 times that so Facebook was a huge bubble when it had its IPO at 100 times the profits of the previous year. That said, the early stakeholders in FB made a great deal when the IPO was done.
19. Re:Correction... by drinkypoo · 2012-09-12 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Unless a company can continuously outgrow the investors' increasing demands, it will, in the end, get the short stick.
  So far practically everything on the web has been supplanted by something else. What's really and truly long-running, and in the No.1 spot? Has any of it occupied that spot since the beginning? The internet archive is still the first archive, but where is Hotbot? Where is IUMA? Who cares about Myspace? Are people still using Microsoft for email? Etc. (Lycos, Internet Archive, Apparently some musicians still, and only Microsofties, respectively... they're rhetorical questions you bastards.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:Correction... by drinkypoo · 2012-09-12 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, no matter how much money from whom.....I thought that one person had control......no? That was the claim
  He who can destroy a thing controls it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:Correction... by arth1 · 2012-09-12 01:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Zuck holds 57% of the "voting" stock and specifically told everyone in the IPO prospectus that he wasn't going to listen to them. Nobody has the ability to oust him and he isn't leaving on his own. The guy knows what he's doing.
  He got married.
  I wouldn't be surprised if Priscilla divorces him after a few years, and sells the shares she got out of it. Unless he has a iron clad prenup, that will lose him his control.
22. Re:Correction... by Charliemopps · 2012-09-12 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is a far far far larger bubble than Facebook. Wait for that Mountain to pop. When the most valuable stock in the world belongs to what's basically a toy company, you know you've got a problem.
23. Re:Correction... by war4peace · 2012-09-12 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  I said the IPO was FACEBOOK's biggest mistake, not Mark's. If you don't see the difference, oh well...
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
24. Re:Correction... by war4peace · 2012-09-12 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  The IPO debacle hurt Facebook's image as a company. Share prices expect to soar, they fell instead. Company image affected.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
25. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sorry Apple has growth, billions in free cash flow, lots of cash on hand, significant IP and real property, and multiple income streams, both hardware, software, services and media/content and a so far very loyal userbase.
  Facebook has some cash flow financed by ads and market research, and shrinking usage in their primary markets.
26. Re:Correction... by Aeros · 2012-09-12 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  ...I knew what he was doing, too, which is why I didn't buy any shares, and will continue to not buy shares until they're at around $10.
  You might not have long to wait you know?
27. Re:Correction... by Jack9 · 2012-09-12 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Apple is a far far far larger bubble than Facebook.
  Apple's net revenue doesn't match the sharp downward slope, that Facebook kept under wraps, until Facebook's IPO. Apple is not a bubble by the simple fact that there's almost no speculation involved. People who own an iPod will get the next iPod etc. Apple's income is not dependent on leveraging potential advertising monetization (read: we'll figure it out later). Google's income is derived from potential advertising profits, with a great track record, in stark contrast to Facebook's published metrics and inability to come up with a working profit model.
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
28. Re:Correction... by kelemvor4 · 2012-09-12 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "The guy knows what he's doing".
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
  If he knew what he was doing, he wouldn't still be about a sinking ship.
  Let's see.. The guy made billions on the deal, and simultaneously kept control of his company. You somehow have a superior knowledge on the subject and know better. How exactly does that work? If anyone didn't know what they were doing it would be the investors who bought the overpriced shares. Zuckerberg, on the other hand can laugh all the way to the bank - or wherever else he might want to go. Because that's the sort of thing you can do when you're a multi billionaire. Cocksucker might be a good description if you ask the other shareholders, but I don't think the incompetence you're pretending he has is really there.
29. Re:Correction... by poetmatt · 2012-09-12 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  You think apple sales are consistent? You might want to look at what they admitted in the samsung vs apple case, in which they acknowledged that was not the case at all. People simply were not aware of alternatives and the lawsuit has raised this to people's attention.
30. Re:Correction... by MacGyver2210 · 2012-09-12 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Making Facebook exclusively a teenaged time waste instead of giving it a single redeeming quality for business or professionals was probably a bigger mistake. When the fad ends, Facebook will inevitably go the way of MySpace.
  
  --
  If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
31. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  You realize FACEBOOK is a "thing" right? It doesn't have a soul, it doesn't make decisions, it can't make mistakes...
32. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  If he lives in California and the divorce proceedings are started there that prenup is worthless after 5 years.
33. Re:Correction... by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-12 02:05 · Score: 2
  
  You realize FACEBOOK is a "thing" right? It doesn't have a soul, it doesn't make decisions, it can't make mistakes...
  There's a guy running for president who disagrees.
  He knows corporations are people because he's fucked his fair share of them.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
34. Re:Correction... by crashumbc · 2012-09-12 02:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Apple most certainly is a "bubble"... It's not going to burst though, its going to be a "slow" leak back into mediocrity. One of the reasons Apple is so involved in lawsuits is they see the writing on the wall. History repeats itself. (see the 80's and Apple vs PC's). Their "profits" are based off the insane prices they charge. They can charge that much because of the "perception" by the public that Apple products are that much better.
  The gap between iphone and the others (android,windows) is MUCH smaller then 2 years ago. There's still a perception of a much larger gap then really exists and that is being propped up isheeple AND the wireless carriers. That is what is keeping Apple's dominance "a float" right now. Carriers are so desperate for the "iPhone" that they are eating the insane premium Apple charges themselves, making it seem as though the iphone is comparable. That is changing though. In a year or so the price of a iphone compared to a Android of the same quality is going to double/triple. Once "Consumers" start seeing they'll have to pay 500 for a iphone of 150 for a Android that works as well or better... Repeat the PC market, Apple will slip back into being a niche company...
35. Re:Correction... by hairyfeet · 2012-09-12 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yes and this can be a good thing or a fucking terrible thing. Remember Steve Ballmer, the cause of MSFT pissing away a monopoly and blowing billions on one shitty idea after the other? Can't get rid of him because between him and his BFF Bill they control 60% of the stock.
  Just because you had a good idea that made a great company does NOT mean you are gonna be able to keep coming up with good ideas that let the company move forward, Yang at Yahoo should have taught everyone THAT lesson. Sometimes outside voices is exactly what you need as they aren't enamored of past successes and can give you an objective outlook. Hell did they even sit down and do some serious discussions with coders trying to make apps with HTML V5? Or did they just jump on the buzzword bandwagon?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
36. Re:Correction... by CanHasDIY · 2012-09-12 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook stockholders.
  FTFY
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
37. Re:Correction... by SilentStaid · 2012-09-12 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly which part of you assumes that the multi-billionaire who managed to keep an iron-fisted control of his multi-billion dollar company during its IPO threw shrewed legal and financial means is going to lose any of it to his wife and not the thousands of investors who do that for a living?
  
  ... actually on second thought -- they were living together in California before they got married? In that great state, she would claim they had a verbal agreement to split assets... then I could tell you that what she would "get" is directly proportional to how good her lawyers are (so you know, the usual.)
38. Re:Correction... by somersault · 2012-09-12 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  And yet other people are saying that the company was sold for basically 100 times it value in the IPO. So how do you figure that his worth has crashed since then?
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
39. Re:Correction... by jo42 · 2012-09-12 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  They managed to sell the company for twice the current market price!
  Truly amazing what you can sell a turd for when properly polished and packaged...
40. Re:Correction... by Piata · 2012-09-12 02:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ebay, Amazon and even Paypal have shown remarkable staying power. The web's still young, but as it ages sites tend to stick around longer and longer. It's going to take an awful lot to dethrone Facebook. I'm sure it will happen but that's the nature of business. Eventually every business either gets replaced or changes their business model to the point that you don't even recognize the company anymore.
41. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  that remains to be seen. they've had a pretty successful run of product successes for a long time now - that obviously won't continue for ever, it's run by fallible people. I can see the slow leak scenario as high likelihood. On the other hand they have very high PE multiples. All it would take is one or two poor quarters for the PE to drop back to earth - that along with the lower E could end up looking like a bursting bubble.
42. Re:Correction... by Trilkin · 2012-09-12 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  There isn't much to really replace it right now. Besides, what's wrong with it? It's a public social networking site. PUBLIC SOCIAL NETWORKING. Privacy is immediately out the window and no successor will ever change that by virtue of how it works. Oh, they make money off of your data? Get used to it. Everyone does, even supermarkets if you have one of their discount cards. Other than that, Facebook is largely what you make of it and is determined more by the kind of friends you have than anything.
  It isn't like MySpace. People wanted to leave it because of the AWFUL, user-designed templates and music on every page. Facebook isn't going anywhere.
  
  --
  Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
43. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  You meant: IPO was the miggest mistake of non-inside traders
  People got rich, but it wasnt the general public stock trader
44. Re:Correction... by alexhmit01 · 2012-09-12 02:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Google dominating for what, 8 years now?
  Our young geeks may NOT remember a time before Google, but there was a time where the "hot" search engine changed every two years, and there were new engines launching all the time.
  The Wild West phase of the Internet is over, but we're still on the frontier.
45. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 02:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  "The guy knows what he's doing".
  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
  If he knew what he was doing, he wouldn't still be about a sinking ship.
  Let's see.. The guy made billions on the deal, and simultaneously kept control of his company. You somehow have a superior knowledge on the subject and know better. How exactly does that work? If anyone didn't know what they were doing it would be the investors who bought the overpriced shares. Zuckerberg, on the other hand can laugh all the way to the bank - or wherever else he might want to go. Because that's the sort of thing you can do when you're a multi billionaire. Cocksucker might be a good description if you ask the other shareholders, but I don't think the incompetence you're pretending he has is really there.
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company. If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated. It's also going to drive up labor costs since they'll have to start paying out bonuses to keep employees happy as well as hire replacements for those that quit. Higher operating costs mean there's even more pressure to bring in more revenue.
  Zuckerberg is set for life, there's no doubt. Facebook as a company is ok for now,but I'm betting it will eventually go the way of Myspace. If Google put some marketing dollars behind Google Plus they might have a chance to take some serious marketshare from FB -- and not just online marketing, they need to reach a broader audience. Many non-geeks still haven't even heard of it.
46. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 02:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If he lives in California and the divorce proceedings are started there that prenup is worthless after 5 years.
  Under California Law, she's not entitled to property he owned prior to getting married (gee, I wonder why he waited until the day *after* the IPO to get married!?). She'd be entitled to any gains the stock made after they were married, but she's probably in for a long wait before the stock rises to meet the IPO price again.
47. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  No, the data mining is their problem. Their API is secretly data mining your activity unrelated 3rd party websites, even! That's just wrong. Add a status bar to your browser and watch the URL, you'll see when it happens heh
48. Re:Correction... by edxwelch · 2012-09-12 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Except most of them weren't allowed to
49. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't it make him, you know, rather rich?
  Unless he sold his shares at the high mark, no. In fact after the IPO his net worth will have crashed.
  Holding shares != rich.
  That depends how much he could have sold his stake in the company for prior to the IPO, His net worth is around $12B today. if you think he could have sold his stake in the company for more than $12B prior to the IPO, then yeah, his net worth has dropped since then. However, I find it unlikely that any company would have paid him $12B for a controlling interest in the company prior to the IPO.
50. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Really? hahahahahahahahaha.
  
  You really believe that?
  
  Hahahahahahahahaha!
51. Re:Correction... by Raenex · 2012-09-12 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  Under California Law, she's not entitled to property he owned prior to getting married (gee, I wonder why he waited until the day *after* the IPO to get married!?).
  Interesting, I didn't know this. Very shrewd.
52. Re:Correction... by Bigbutt · 2012-09-12 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same in most places. My wife and I just separated and the laws here say the same thing. Most of my personal gear was off limits (and hers too to be fair) and the only vulnerable stuff was my new gaming gear and guitar gear. And they're not near worth the art she creates.
  [John]
  
  --
  Shit better not happen!
53. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  employees are not investors.
54. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  He meant: "I had the original idea but I can't make it work in a cellphone."
  The native app is worse than the website.
55. Re:Correction... by edxwelch · 2012-09-12 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  some of the investors in the IPO weren't allowed to sell on first day
56. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and I also remember when Apple's shareholders ousted Steve Jobs and installed that jackass from Pepsi as the CEO, who proceeded to run the company straight into the ground.
57. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company. If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated.
  LOL. Underwater? Oh no, the free stock they were given is only worth $1M instead of $2M. Oh the horror.
58. Re:Correction... by Xest · 2012-09-12 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah because it's not as if relationships ever last, and women only ever marry for the divorce settlement don't they?
  Perhaps you have had a rather traumatic marriage experience, but it is equally possible that they do actually love each other and get on great such that they will actually remain together until the day one of them dies.
  He's a geek, not a Hollywood actor or rock star, he married someone he's known before he got rich, he married someone he loves, because he loves her, not because she's the latest oscar winning super-skinny blonde pinup actress, whom, with his fortunes, he could easily get if he really wanted to.
  The GP's point still stands, if Zuckerberg is in a genuinely loving relationship then his position is just as secure as if he wasn't. That's kind of the point in having a healthy relationship, unfortunately many people don't get that.
59. Re:Correction... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-09-12 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  FB took of because Myspace was godawful terrible. FB doesn't have the glaringly obvious problems that G+ can fill the gaps in on. Maybe some day someone will come up with a whizzbang feature that will leave FB tripping over it's own feet, but until that day...
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
60. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company. If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated.
  LOL. Underwater? Oh no, the free stock they were given is only worth $1M instead of $2M. Oh the horror.
  I don't know how long-term "founding" employees are treated (i.e. Zuckerberg), but my stock grants have always had a "fair market value" attached to stock grants, even pre-IPO stock. You'd have a hard time proving to the IRS that stock that was granted to you a day before a $40 IPO was worth $0. It's entirely possible that for some employees the tax liability on the stock is higher than the current market price.
61. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah back then we had what we old timers call 'competition' in the search engine world. Today we have a Google search monopoly^w ... oops ... sorry ... I keep forgetting that one is not allowed to say that here.
  Who gives a shit about competition? Competition is only good if it gives you a benefit. With all the competition back then, even the best search engines were giving mediocre results. Then google came along and spanked them all. Having all those other competitors does nothing if they all suck at their results.
  And we do have other competitors now. New search engines pop up all the time, but few of them are decent, and only a handful are good enough to get any real attention. But even those generally don't even come close to matching googles results, and they simply get forgotten about. The only thing that has been able to rival google is microsoft (fairly comparable to google, but not really any better). For general search, nobody else really holds a candle to them. Wolfram|Alpha is a newbie that actually is pretty handy, but it's more of a specialized search engine. There are only certain things I'd typically use it for...certainly not for my day-to-day search engine usage.
62. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Inevitable and unavoidable? Pretty sure the other largest privately owned corporations... Cargill for example... are proof that you don't need an IPO to be successful. Hell, up until that whole fiasco, I wouldn't have been surprised if Facebook was the most successful privately owned company in North America.
63. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  More precisely, "anyone who had facebook shares before the IPO and sold them before the price dropped... did rather well."
64. Re:Correction... by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-09-12 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Also, there are rules on how many people can own shares before you start to act and more importantly, report, like a public company.
  Facebook had reached the point where they started to bump into these regulations. So, they either do a bunch of paperwork, and stay private, or do a bunch of paperwork and make a few billion. They actually delayed the IPO for a while, until they couldn't really wait.
  The mistake was the pricing. They priced too high. They had the "lets not leave any money on the table" thing in their head too much to placate the people who were selling and running, and didn't think of the long term knock on the company if the Facebook bubble deflated. They should have priced at 15-18, which still gives them a pretty high P/E ratio.
65. Re:Correction... by TubeSteak · 2012-09-12 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated.
  Being underwater on a stock can be useful for tax management purposes.
  You sell the stock, mark the difference as a loss, and then use that to manipulate your tax liability.
  Ideally, if you think Facebook is going to bounce back, you invest the money you made from the sale into some other vehicle that holds Facebook stock.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
66. Re:Correction... by HideyoshiJP · 2012-09-12 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  I read an interesting article a few months ago on Forbes regarding some signs of Apple being a bubble. Some of them seem somewhat anecdotal, but it was an interesting read. http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/04/23/five-signs-that-apple-is-a-bubble/3/
67. Re:Correction... by Dragonslicer · 2012-09-12 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  FB took of because Myspace was godawful terrible. FB doesn't have the glaringly obvious problems that G+ can fill the gaps in on.
  Have you seen the new Timeline pages? They're only one wrong background color and a couple blink tags away from MySpace.
68. Re:Correction... by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2012-09-12 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  FB doesn't have the glaringly obvious problems[...]
  Terrible privacy track record?
  Besides, it's not only about problems. Does FB do anything exceptionally well? I see an evolution from ICQ, MSN, Skype, Second Life, Facebook, so I expect something else will pop up in the next 2-3 years that will absorb most of the attention of the consumers.
  I don't think FB will be replaced by something that does the same thing like Google+ but it just might if FB continues to blatantly disregard users privacy rights.
69. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah fuck those Google guys...for making a search engine better than everyone else. Seriously the barrier to switching search engines is changing your homepage. I can't fault Google for having a monopoly because they did it better than everyone else, if someone develops a better search engine than google then people will use it.
70. Re:Correction... by kelemvor4 · 2012-09-12 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know how long-term "founding" employees are treated (i.e. Zuckerberg), but my stock grants have always had a "fair market value" attached to stock grants, even pre-IPO stock. You'd have a hard time proving to the IRS that stock that was granted to you a day before a $40 IPO was worth $0. It's entirely possible that for some employees the tax liability on the stock is higher than the current market price.
  I'm certainly no expert in the area, but wouldn't they only be liable for taxes based on profits made only when they sold the stock?
  
  My employer gave us stock "options" a few years back, which meant that we could buy x number of shares at a preset price regardless of current market value. You could exercise the option and just take a payout on the difference (assuming the difference was positive) between the option price and current value. In my case I think I got about $1k for 400 shares. That was treated as investment income on my income taxes the next year.
71. Re:Correction... by kelemvor4 · 2012-09-12 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  FB doesn't have the glaringly obvious problems[...]
  Terrible privacy track record?
  Besides, it's not only about problems. Does FB do anything exceptionally well? I see an evolution from ICQ, MSN, Skype, Second Life, Facebook, so I expect something else will pop up in the next 2-3 years that will absorb most of the attention of the consumers.
  I don't think FB will be replaced by something that does the same thing like Google+ but it just might if FB continues to blatantly disregard users privacy rights.
  I used both at the time. Back then, facebook had a clean and easy to use interface where myspace was a mess of a site to visit. Facebook has changed for the worse over the years, and now facebook is a mess and G+ has a nice clean interface. Unfortunately G+ doesn't have the people, which is why I haven't logged into my G+ account in months.
  
  I think you're right about your prediction, though...
72. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  but my stock grants have always had a "fair market value" attached to stock grants, even pre-IPO stock.
  Depends on whether you receive stock, or stock options. Pre-IPO, you couldn't have received 'stock,' you would have received stock options, that is, the option to buy a certain number of shares at a certain strike price, either set at time of award, or set at time of vesting - depending on the grant. Stock options are worthless - and thus tax-free - until and unless you exercise them, and then you only pay the capital gains tax on the difference between the stock price when you sell, and the strike price the options were granted at.
  If you were given a stock grant - e.g., actual shares of publicly traded company stock as a bonus or something like that, then that would be treated as income, and you would be taxed on the monetary value of the stock grant at the stock price on the day of the grant. You may still owe capital gains on those if you sell them for a profit.
  If you were awarded a mess of stock options a few weeks before an IPO at a strike price of 23 cents, and the stock was then sold at 40 dollars a share, the IRS would not have any issue with that so long as you paid your taxes. The SEC *might* take an issue with that, as there are certain rules and requirements that companies have to obey as they near the IPO issue date, but a private company can do whatever the fuck it wants to with its equity, and if it wants to hand a bunch of 18 year old kids a million dollars worth of company equity... it can do that.
  I'm not sure what you're talking about, but your story really suggests that you've never earned, much less exercised, a stock grant or a stock option, since you don't seem to know what the fuck you're talking about.
73. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  I know of one person who's cared at all about this case outside of Slashdot. In return, I bought a 3000 dollar MacBook Pro to offset whatever crap he thought his (continued) boycott of Apple would bring about.
  
  Read it Samsung/Android fanbois! I spent more in one shot with Apple than most of you will ever spend on Samsung/Android in your entire lives!!!! LOLZZZZZ!!!!
74. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  but my stock grants have always had a "fair market value" attached to stock grants, even pre-IPO stock.
  Depends on whether you receive stock, or stock options. Pre-IPO, you couldn't have received 'stock,' you would have received stock options, that is, the option to buy a certain number of shares at a certain strike price, either set at time of award, or set at time of vesting - depending on the grant. Stock options are worthless - and thus tax-free - until and unless you exercise them, and then you only pay the capital gains tax on the difference between the stock price when you sell, and the strike price the options were granted at.
  If you were given a stock grant - e.g., actual shares of publicly traded company stock as a bonus or something like that, then that would be treated as income, and you would be taxed on the monetary value of the stock grant at the stock price on the day of the grant. You may still owe capital gains on those if you sell them for a profit.
  If you were awarded a mess of stock options a few weeks before an IPO at a strike price of 23 cents, and the stock was then sold at 40 dollars a share, the IRS would not have any issue with that so long as you paid your taxes. The SEC *might* take an issue with that, as there are certain rules and requirements that companies have to obey as they near the IPO issue date, but a private company can do whatever the fuck it wants to with its equity, and if it wants to hand a bunch of 18 year old kids a million dollars worth of company equity... it can do that.
  I'm not sure what you're talking about, but your story really suggests that you've never earned, much less exercised, a stock grant or a stock option, since you don't seem to know what the fuck you're talking about.
  If you exercise a significant value of QSO's, you need to be aware of AMT
75. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Under California Law, she's not entitled to property he owned prior to getting married (gee, I wonder why he waited until the day *after* the IPO to get married!?).
  I was thinking the same thing. Mod me down all you like, but a jew is nothing if not shrewd with his money.
76. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  The mainstream Android devices from Samsung, Motorola, ASUS, etc. are all priced in line with Apple's offerings. I posted a citation that the new iPad 16GB WiFi only model costs Apple $316 to manufacture. I've found it available for as low as $459 or $499 direct from Apple. I don't see this as an insane margin to charge for a very well built product with a mature ecosystem. I'm too lazy to find the article again but a simple search will give you several websites referencing a similar manufacturing cost.
  Honestly, all these hardware manufacturers are trying to maximize profit (don't kid yourself). The problem is Apple has the backend of the App Store and iTunes to prop up their revenue whereas these other hardware manufacturers get no benefit being part of the Android ecosystem (unless Google has some sort of profit sharing arrangement with these guys that I don't know of).
  Microsoft gets it and is why they are moving to the unified platform with W8 / WP8. They've known this all along since the days of licensing DOS to IBM. The money is in the software and the hardware game is always a race to the bottom.
  Your post is just ignorant and wrong.
77. Re:Correction... by houghi · 2012-09-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  So far practically everything on the web has been supplanted by something else.
  Are you a patent lawyer that you think if you put "on the web" that it becomes something new? See if it works without that part:
  So far practically everything has been supplanted by something else.
  Yep. Works great. Even the rest works well.
  The problem is not if something will be replaced, but when. Is it in 1 year, 5 years or 10. And can you make enough money in that time to move on to the next thing.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
78. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  lazy anonymous troll is lazy.
79. Re:Correction... by tilante · 2012-09-12 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  IMDB has been the most popular site for movie information pretty much since there was a web at all. In fact, the database itself predates the rise of the World Wide Web, having originally started on UseNet.
80. Re:Correction... by tilante · 2012-09-12 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  If they're taking stock options pre-IPO, then yes, they are. The two are not mutually exclusive sets.
81. Re:Correction... by crunchygranola · 2012-09-12 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  We don't have to guess about this, articles about the nature of employee stock compensation are readily available: http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-lockup-release-2012-8
  The employees are being granted stock in phases, which is priced at the time of grant. They thus are getting paid in stock, and will be taxed at the market value. They can pay those taxes by selling off some of their shares.
  This is not a problem for employees, though their stock when they get is worth less than they had expected.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
82. Re:Correction... by jbengt · 2012-09-12 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Apple most certainly is a "bubble"...
  
  Everything else you said might be true, but none of it shows an Apple bubble.
83. Re:Correction... by mbkennel · 2012-09-12 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  "If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated. It's also going to drive up labor costs since they'll have to start paying out bonuses to keep employees happy as well as hire replacements for those that quit. Higher operating costs mean there's even more pressure to bring in more revenue."
  Fortunately, they have $10B in cash which Zuckerberg (I will use his name personally as he is Facebook as much as Louis XIV was imperial France) raised at an abnormally high price.
84. Re:Correction... by hairyfeet · 2012-09-12 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  OMFG...did you just compare Steve Jobs, one of the best salesmen and visionaries of the past century....to Steve Ballmer? Hell I haven't owned shit from Apple and even I wouldn't ever make THAT comparison!
  In the case of MSFT the old guard IS the jackass, because he doesn't have the amount of vision in his whole damned body that Gates had in his pinkie toe. And I would remind you that at the time what Jobs wanted to do? would cost over $10,000 a machine, ala the Lisa which the company took a bath over.
  The problem Jobs had was he was TOO FAR ahead of his time, look at his designs from his NeXT days, it took 20 years for the kind of powerful chips required to build what the man saw in his head to become feasible for the masses. As much as Apple fans will hate hearing this if Jobs would have stayed the company probably would have went under, because Jobs saw what the future of computing needed to be, simple, easy to use, accessible by anyone,networking as simple as plug and play, but the tech simply didn't exist to make that a reality and rather than accept it he wanted to throw money at it and make it so.
  So there is really NO comparison, and this is again from someone who doesn't use Apple products or even own an iPod, but with Jobs you had someone so far ahead it took 2 decades of silicon advancement to catch up, whereas Ballmer is an MBA used car salesman whose answer to everything is "Me too! ohh ohh me toooo!"
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
85. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Do the employees have stock, or stock options?
  People have got bitten by AMT in the past (i.e the last crash), though the rules have changed a bit.
  http://www.mystockoptions.com/articles/index.cfm/catID/9E603C8D-4033-4685-9FFC78E2BFC9B238/ObjectID/163BDB8D-5434-41D8-A2EAB9A2F22670C0
86. Re:Correction... by Hognoxious · 2012-09-12 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  What's the point of buying at 10 if it's likely to go down to 9?
  Or is there some bizarre Spinal Tap effect that I hadn't heard of?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
87. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  phones and tablets, don't have to be Apple's cash cow forever though.
  Apple's main strength is they are a systems company ( rather than just a hardware, software or, service company) with a big pile of cash. They have the ability to find another market, develope a "game changing" product and then ride that for a few years before moving on to the next thing. They don't need the iPhone and iPad to carry them forever.
88. Re:Correction... by dhomstad · 2012-09-12 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, let me say that I buy tech products on price point, and overall Apple can not compete in this category. However, on the sut carrier-subsidized devices, the game changes a little bit. Apple's contracts with carriers allow them to receive larger subsidies per phone. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57419822-37/analyst-carriers-are-locked-into-those-steep-iphone-subsidies/ Hypothetical situation: Apple and Samsung spend $600 on hardware Verizon applies a $350 subsidy to the Apple phone, $300 subsidy to the Samsung phone. Consumer's choice: pay $250 for the newest Apple phone, or $300 for the new Sammy - both with very similar hardware specs. I really want to see some market research on people's phone buying behavior. For example, % buying subsidized phones, average life span per phone, user's changing carriers. It's way too easy to say something like "Android leads the smartphone market share with 68%" when you have such a dynamic industry.
  
  --
  No trees were killed to send this message, but a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
89. Re:Correction... by farble1670 · 2012-09-12 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  any billionaire male, especially a young reasonably hip one, has women lined up for miles waiting for a chance. this is too much for a mere mortal man to cope with. by the same token, knowing that she can walk away with billions (?) in her name (at some point) is not a lot of incentive to stick it out through the rough times.
  so yes, it's a good bet it won't last. of course anything is possible.
90. Re:Correction... by farble1670 · 2012-09-12 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  the IPO was a massive success for facebook. all the money they collected by selling those stocks is now operating capital. that money belongs to facebook for whatever ... expansion, talent, warchest, etc.
  and, that's the goal of ANY IPO- get as much money as you can. if zuck did any different he'd be grossly negligent in his duties. yes OBVIOUSLY the company has to continue to grow and make money, which is true regardless of the result of the IPO. yes obviously, the company is betting on future success. that's what any company does.
  what would you have had him do? come out publicly and say "look, even though demand sets our stock price at $38, i'm only going to charge $20, because honestly i want all of you to have low expectations of the company and it's growth potential."?
91. Re:Correction... by arth1 · 2012-09-12 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  it is equally possible that they do actually love each other and get on great such that they will actually remain together until the day one of them dies.
  Possible, sure, but not equally possible - the odds are against it.
  Also consider the statistically significant factors that skews the risk:
  - He's a college drop-out, which near doubles the risk of divorce compared to someone having a degree.
  - It's a mixed marriage with a white male and Asian-American female, which makes divorce around 4% more likely.
  - There are no children, which further increases the risk of divorce.
  - He's wealthy, which also increases the risk.
  - She works, which further increases the risk.
  - He lives in California, which also increases the risk.
  - It's a mixed religious heritage marriage, which greatly increases the risk.
  On the other hand, it is his first marriage, which reduces the risk somewhat.
  But overall, the odds are probably not that good. I wish him luck, though - Bill Gates seems to have managed fine, but he also took his time before jumping the broom.
92. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  > You think apple sales are consistent?
  Doesn't matter what you or I think individually. What the market think, drives the stock price. More importantly your concept of consistency is stagnation or decline. To put it simply, if the change in revenue is a positive gradient, you have consistency that drives a public offering's market price.
  > People simply were not aware of alternatives
  That's naive. iOS had to compete with BB then Droid. Saying that a lawsuit (which almost nobody technical followed, understood or cared about) is really laughable. It's a footnote on the news.
  http://barefigur.es/ - Play with it.
93. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  She'd be entitled to any gains the stock made after they were married
  you know what would be awesome?
  law says the partner is entitled to any gains made while married
  to be fair, they should be liable for any losses incurred while married as well
94. Re:Correction... by Sparton · 2012-09-12 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company.
  You seem to have a mistaken assumption that his company's employees are his top concern. Considering no one seems to bat an eye at the assumption that he's "set for life", I don't think such altruistic matters concern him in the slightest.
95. Re:Correction... by shiftless · 2012-09-12 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company. If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated.
  What part of Zuck's business plan seems to imply he's in it for the long haul?
96. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company.
  You seem to have a mistaken assumption that his company's employees are his top concern. Considering no one seems to bat an eye at the assumption that he's "set for life", I don't think such altruistic matters concern him in the slightest.
  I was talking about the company, not Zuckerberg. The only reason he needs to care about the company so he can keep a few more of his billions of dollars. If he walked away from the company tomorrow, he'd still have billions of dollars to his name (and the company stock would likely drop in the short term, but depending on who takes over, it could help in the long term), but his ego probably won't let him do that - he'll want the company to succeed and grow with him at the helm. But there's pretty much nothing that could happen to the company now that will prevent him from being a billionaire -- it would take an extraordinary act to make the company's stock value to drop far enough to take him out of the billionaire range.
97. Re:Correction... by Sparton · 2012-09-12 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about the company, not Zuckerberg.
  Then no offense, but your interjection to change the subject of this thread to be about the company was somewhat inappropriate, considering the three posts above yours.
98. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was talking about the company, not Zuckerberg.
  Then no offense, but your interjection to change the subject of this thread to be about the company was somewhat inappropriate, considering the three posts above yours.
  No offense, but I assumed that someone would read the first few words of my post: A company is only as good as its employees.
  Sorry if that made it sound like I was saying that Zuckerberg's wealth is connected to the health of the company. I kind of thought I made that clear that Zuckerberg doesn't need FB to remain rich when I said Zuckerberg is set for life, there's no doubt
  But if changing the topic of conversation within a thread is not permissible, then you should read to the very top of the thread where it was stated that the IPO was a success for Facebook the company: Hardly, the IPO was an amazing success for facebook. And I pointed out that just because they made lots of money doesn't necessarily mean that they made out well. For example, they've pretty much slammed the door on any chance of a secondary offering for the forseeable future.
99. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  A company is only as good as its employees, and having demotivated employees is not good for any company. If the employees are underwater on their stock for the forseeable future, it's going to be hard to keep them motivated.
  What part of Zuck's business plan seems to imply he's in it for the long haul?
  The fact that he structured the deal to maintain majority control of the company? Why would he institute such a plan (and alienate some large investors) if he wasn't planning to retain control? If he really wanted to cash in his billions and move on, there are better ways to ensure an orderly transition that would have been better for everyone, including himself.
100. Re:Correction... by nateb · 2012-09-12 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  But CDDB died.
  
  --
  -- Nate
101. Re:Correction... by Dahamma · 2012-09-12 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, do you know how IPOs work? Want to guess who SOLD the most shares of Facebook in the IPO? Facebook! That's the "real" reasons why companies IPO - to raise capital by selling shares to the public. The fact that the existing private shares held by employees and investors can be sold later to make them a boatload of money is incidental (though important).
  And in fact, *Facebook* the company was one of the few sellers who was able to get the full IPO price on the shares. Most of the employees had to wait until the blackout period ended. It was a huge success for Facebook, but not so much for many of the employees who started soon before the IPO.
  And HUGE AMOUNTS OF CASH IN THE BANK is in fact an asset - one of the best. So Facebook massively increased their assets in the IPO (to the tune of $16B+) as well.
102. Re:Correction... by mattack2 · 2012-09-12 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Under California Law, she's not entitled to property he owned prior to getting married (gee, I wonder why he waited until the day *after* the IPO to get married!?). She'd be entitled to any gains the stock made after they were married, but she's probably in for a long wait before the stock rises to meet the IPO price again.
  Wait, that means that the "property he owned prior to getting married" is really the "value of the shares at the time he got married", not "this ton of FB stock I have prior to getting married", regardless of value.
103. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  She'd be entitled to any gains the stock made after they were married
  you know what would be awesome?
  law says the partner is entitled to any gains made while married
  to be fair, they should be liable for any losses incurred while married as well
  In California, spouses are liable for their "community" debt. Though I suspect that you're referring to FB's drop in stock value after the IPO but I see no way that could be construed as debt that he and/or his wife would owe.
104. Re:Correction... by mattack2 · 2012-09-12 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm certainly no expert in the area, but wouldn't they only be liable for taxes based on profits made only when they sold the stock?
  No, not exactly. You can end up losing your money and still have to pay AMT on the gains at the time you exercised (but kept) the options.
  This happened to people in the dot com days. (My info is from one of the first results when I searched for "dot com alternative minimum tax". http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/amt-credit-refundable-personal-finance-taxes-iso.html)
  Basically, I think it happened like this.. They had options at $1, the stock was currently $100. So if they exercised-but-kept (there's a more appropriate word for that I think) the shares, they now had AMT income of $99 * number of shares. (Of course, they paid $1 * number of shares for them.)
  Then the stock tanked to $.05/share. If they had 20 shares, they now made $1, paid $20 for them, and had phantom taxable income of $99 * 20 = $1980, which was never in their pocket, but they have to pay tax on it.
105. Re:Correction... by MagusSlurpy · 2012-09-12 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  It's my understanding that there is no tax liability until you actually sell the stock, or receive dividends.
  I could be wrong, though, I'm not a full-time stock market. . . guy.
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
106. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's my understanding that there is no tax liability until you actually sell the stock, or receive dividends.
  I could be wrong, though, I'm not a full-time stock market. . . guy.
  Even full-time stock market guys don't understand the ramifications of ISO's and AMT, you need to be a tax attorney.
107. Re:Correction... by Algae_94 · 2012-09-12 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  They have the ability to find another market, develope a "game changing" product and then ride that for a few years before moving on to the next thing.
  I don't know whether Apple's stock is in a bubble or not, but this kind of talk leads me to believe there is some bubbling to it. There is no basis to this comment, just some irrational belief that this company will continue to go up and up and up. Sounds like things I heard in the late 90's about various .coms, or things I heard just a few years ago by people trying to buy 2nd and 3rd homes as investments.
108. Re:Correction... by redneckmother · 2012-09-12 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  You realize FACEBOOK is a "thing" right? It doesn't have a soul, it doesn't make decisions, it can't make mistakes...
  There's a guy running for president who disagrees.
  He knows corporations are people because he's fucked his fair share of them.
  Actually, there are TWO guys who are running for US President who disagree. In their defense, it IS consensual sex.
109. Re:Correction... by MagusSlurpy · 2012-09-12 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  While their tax treatment is certainly complicated, the taxation schedule isn't - you still aren't taxed until you liquidate the stock.
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
110. Re:Correction... by hawguy · 2012-09-12 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  While their tax treatment is certainly complicated, the taxation schedule isn't - you still aren't taxed until you liquidate the stock.
  Not true, if you exercise an ISO and are subject to AMT, it's due in the tax year that you exercise the options, even if you don't sell the stock. Laws are changing and that may not be true in the future.
  http://www.nceo.org/articles/stock-options-alternative-minimum-tax-amt
111. Re:Correction... by Xest · 2012-09-12 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's such an arbitrary set of criteria you've tried to apply without applying any rationality to it:
  "- He's a college drop-out, which near doubles the risk of divorce compared to someone having a degree."
  Why? Because said people are more likely to suffer financial hardship due to poorer employment causing more stress. I don't think financial hardship will be a problem for Zuckerberg somehow. Zuckerberg didn't drop out of college because he wasn't that smart, he dropped out because he had achieved more than college could ever give him.
  "- It's a mixed marriage with a white male and Asian-American female, which makes divorce around 4% more likely."
  Does it? or is that statistic skewed by say, African-American relationships with white Americans where the racial prejudices are much more prevalent and problematic in such relationships. What's the figure for Asian-American/White-American relationships specifically? is the reasoning behind such marital breakups mitigated when wealth or level of education is increased?
  "- There are no children, which further increases the risk of divorce."
  Yet.
  "- He's wealthy, which also increases the risk."
  What about the skewing of this by hollywood types etc. that I pointed out? Amongst tech billionaires does this remain true? Is wealth the inherent cause of the risk or is it simply the stupid and wealthy? Does the greater intelligence of tech billionaires over say, rock stars allow them to outweigh this by having a relationship based on mutual love and respect rather than simply fucking the latest pinup?
  I could go on, but the point is this, you're trying to pull out statistical quotations and apply them in an invalid manner. Your post is a classic example of the "Statistics can be used to prove anything" line, you're mis-applying them completely because you're using the general case, which may well not apply. Certainly you cannot say with any degree of confidence that the odds are against it, that is a complete and utter fabrication, based on misuse of statistics.
  The primary mistake you've made is to assume from incomplete information what the real odds are on divorce, but you can't infer that from the incomplete information you've used. Yes, on average a college dropout in a mixed-race relationship, but a college dropout in a mixed-race relationship where both people are highly educated making the college dropout downsides irrelevant may statistically be more likely to lead a healthy marriage.
  It may well be that doing an analysis of Slashdot moderations, that users who username begins with A are more often down-modded because they are more often wrong, but there may be a subgroup of those users for example, those beginning with A, but with a low UID are actually more often correct. The problem with your analysis is that you're ignoring that subgroup and applying the general case where it is likely not actually relevant.
112. Re:Correction... by Xest · 2012-09-12 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely, that's why Bill Gates' marriage was over so quickly.
  Oh wait, nevermind.
113. Re:Correction... by arth1 · 2012-09-12 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  What's the figure for Asian-American/White-American relationships specifically?
  Yes. Or even more specific than that: white male and Asian-American female. (If it had been the other way around, the risk would have jumped much higher.)
  
  Certainly you cannot say with any degree of confidence that the odds are against it, that is a complete and utter fabrication, based on misuse of statistics.
  Sure there are uncertainties, and large ones too, but the size of the uncertainties does not change the odds. The uncertainties strike both ways.
  The odds start at close to 50% risk for divorce in the first place, for anyone. I really think that yes, there are lots of factors here that increase that risk.
  But separate the risk from being a prediction. It's not. They might enter a group marriage, or they might both die at the same time next year, or they might live happily ever after, or a bunch of other things.
  Let's just say that if a bookie offered better than even odds on his being divorced within ten years, I'd seriously consider taking a wager.
114. Re:Correction... by Xest · 2012-09-12 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  "The odds start at close to 50% risk for divorce in the first place, for anyone."
  This simply isn't true, if it were, then divorce rates would tend towards this value in every country, but they simply do not. Obviously many social factors come in to play. You're far less likely to get divorced if you're Italian for example.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography
  You've not provided any source whatsoever for any of your claims either which makes your argument suspicious, and a quick Google has brought up some equally silly statistics:
  http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/21-factors-may-increase-risk-divorce
  One interesting key theme there though is those who are highly intelligent (which both Zuckerberg and his wife are) are the least likely groups to get a divorce which demonstrates my point that you can try and chip away at your 50% starting point (if even that was correct) with various stats here and there (even though combined with other factors they may have different outcomes) but the fact that they have already been a couple for quite some time, through some major upheavals in both their lives, coupled with the fact they're both smart, means that these combined things may mean they're a strong enough couple to drive a steamroller right through your other stats.
  I'd wager people who are smart, and who have been able to get through such a major upheaval as these two went through without trouble have a far higher chance of staying together - and that's really the point here, if these two are a particularly unique subset, which, given their circumstances, they absolutely are (not many people make billions in their 20s) then the average becomes meaningless - these aren't average people, living a stereotypical lifestyle, by any measure.
  The only statistic that would give a reasonable chance of determining the success of this particular marriage would be one that gives the average for their combined set of fairly unique circumstances, but you don't have that, so you've no idea. You can't simply choose an arbitrary starting point and take a number of disjoint statistics to arbitrarily chip away at that point and expect to come to any realistic or informed conclusion, it just doesn't work like that.
115. Re:Correction... by drinkypoo · 2012-09-12 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Unless a company can continuously outgrow the investors' increasing demands, it will, in the end, get the short stick.
  So far practically everything on the web has been supplanted by something else.
  
  Are you a patent lawyer that you think if you put "on the web" that it becomes something new?
  Are you a tool that you attack straw men instead of responding to comments?
  
  Works great.
  Never said it didn't.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
116. Re:Correction... by coinreturn · 2012-09-13 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is a far far far larger bubble than Facebook. Wait for that Mountain to pop. When the most valuable stock in the world belongs to what's basically a toy company, you know you've got a problem.
  Sounds entirely like a fandroid fantasy.
117. Re:Correction... by travisbean · 2012-09-13 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  She'd be entitled to any gains the stock made after they were married, but she's probably in for a long wait before the stock rises to meet the IPO price again.
  So, are you saying, from her perspective, the marriage is underwater? :)
118. Re:Correction... by Somebody+is+Grar · 2012-09-13 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  That pretty much sums it up -- he's a dick but he's not a stupid dick.
  
  --
  Grar II
119. Re:Correction... by Somebody+is+Grar · 2012-09-13 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook is a corporation. A corporation is a group of people with common ownership of an enterprise, and who are continually hoodwinked into thinking they are earning money while the BoD and management trickle out just enough in dividends to keep these people thinking it. The only reason most non-institutional investors bother is either a) they have enough money to invest big and either make it big or make a big tax break on the loss; or b) they want to feel like big-shots, even if they only own 1/575,000,000,000 of the company. That and limited liability -- that is, the ability to acquire money and not be accountable for how it is acquired. And then act all indignant and shocked when confronted with how the money was acquired.
  Fabulous wealth is always "just around the corner" (though they won't say that in the prospectus), but that is only for those with millions of shares. The days of a stock price going for $10 to $20,000 over time are long over. GE and Berkshire Hathaway will never be duplicated, certainly not by any tech company.
  If you weren't in on the beginning, don't bother now.
  That being said, I guess a group of people qualifies as a "thing."
  
  --
  Grar II
120. Re:Correction... by Sean+Hederman · 2012-09-13 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, no. Facebook as part of its IPO sold huge amounts of shares for the company, and gained massive amounts of cash in return, at a bloody good price it seems. That's what stock markets are FOR. They also make the shares more liquid which is good for the investors. Oh, and force better reporting, which is also good for the investors.
  I also love your complete misunderstanding of what the investors provide. You claim that they produce nothing. Not true, they produced the company, by investing in it when it was small. Nowadays they're helping to finance its expansion plans. In return for that they ask that it be well run, and try and give them a return for the money they provided to it. They COULD just give the company tons of money and ask nothing in return I guess, but then they wouldn't be investors, they'd be scammed marks. Sometimes they decide to sell their stake to someone else. That someone else has the same expectations as the original investor, oerwise they wouldn't have paid the original investor as much as they did.
  The whole system is set up to reward and protect people who provide money and resources to risky new ideas. But, you carry on believing your version, because that makes so much sense.
121. Re:Correction... by Sean+Hederman · 2012-09-13 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  And FB itself also got a great deal. If I want to sell something, and market demand has driven the price to well above what it should be, is that my fault as the seller? Because by that logic, Apple should be giving a LOT of money back to the purchasers of its products.
122. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-14 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  the web is not young. Have you not heard of dotcom crash/internet bubble/web bubble?
Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:15 · Score: 0

Slashdot is the lower class.
Correction... by Huggs · 2012-09-12 00:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Zuckerberg: Betting On HTML5 Was Facebook's Biggest Mistake For The iOS App". Company-wise, their IPO certainly was a bigger mistake than using HTML5 in iOS.
I don't give a Zuck! by Elminster+Aumar · 2012-09-12 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wish that guy would take a hike... As for his comment, well, let's see him come up with a markup language standard that appeases every vendor while supporting every aspect of media delivery for users. That's not an easy task. Say what you want about the consortium, but what they did in the amount of time they did it in is rather impressive... These things are done in baby steps--but their efforts delivered more than this. Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions. The consortium is just trying to make everything more accessible while accommodating for everyone. Again, not an easy task at all.
1. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by TheSunborn · 2012-09-12 00:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The problem with html5 apps is javascript. That language is just not designed to delopment of huge applications.
2. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Sudline · 2012-09-12 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook is not a big application. The problem is rather iOS.
3. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by radio4fan · 2012-09-12 00:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If that were really the problem in this case then the Facebook website would have exactly the same issues, and you'd have to download a Facebook client app for desktop use.
  The real problem is that browsers on mobiles still suck.
4. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  He thinks it sucks on Android too, per the Article.
5. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem is that browsers on mobiles still suck.
  Yes, yes, let's blame it all on mobile browsers (despite using practically the same software as the desktop version) and not on limited resources, limited screen size and limited user interaction. The problem of HTML5 is not that it is bad, it is that it needs a power hungry machine to make it fly.
6. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by bWareiWare.co.uk · 2012-09-12 00:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Not supporting the type of moble App Facebook were trying to write is a feature of HTML5 not a wrinkle to iron out.
7. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is more complex than that: Mobile devices lack CPU grunt to do things which are easier to do on a desktop systems.
  Because of this the mobile OS builders concentrate what little CPU they do have to make sure their apps run the best as they can at the cost of anything else you may wish to run on top of that. In fact I think they even cripple Javascript on iOS to make sure the OS keeps ticking nicely, for example native scroll events take precendence over Javascript scroll events. I think the main reason that flash was killed in iOS was because it was a closed source CPU hog that they couldn't cripple.
  The only thing that will change this for mobile development is more CPU power, which is difficult if we don't want to have personal hand warmers in our pockets.
  I don't have a problem with JS for application GUI development as long as there is enough juice to run it.
8. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by R_Dorothy · 2012-09-12 00:42 · Score: 2
  
  That's pretty much what PPK made of the comments, and there are few people that understand mobile browsers better than him. http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2012/09/facebooks_html5.html
  
  --
  Stupid flounders!
9. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  "As for his comment, well, let's see him come up with a markup language standard that appeases every vendor while supporting every aspect of media delivery for users. That's not an easy task. Say what you want about the consortium, but what they did in the amount of time they did it in is rather impressive..."
  By consortium I assume you mean W3C, but the HTML5 spec was written by WHATWG. Part the problem with HTML5 is that it doesn't represent the interests of many vendors because WHATWG is run in a fairly authoritarian manner by a small handful of individuals representing even fewer companies. In contrast, the W3C represents many hundreds of companies from all facets of the tech world and decisions are made much more democratically.
  I'm not honestly sure development of HTML5 was done in a small amount of time. Part the complaint about the W3C that led to the formation of WHATWG was that the W3C moved too slowly, yet despite WHATWG's authoritarian power structure which should, like China, allow it to move much more rapidly it's taken just as long as other W3C standards have and is of drastically lower quality than some of them to boot.
  "Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions."
  Which makes no sense, because the whole argument of HTML5 allowing for all sorts of crap, rather than being a neat, clean, spec, was that exactly this wouldn't happen. The fact it has demonstrates how WHATWG was more a power play to hijack web standards by a few vested interests, rather than any altruistic move to improve the web and make things better because HTML5 has not only failed to remove many problems of past standards, but has in fact made them worse in some cases. For example:
  "The consortium is just trying to make everything more accessible while accommodating for everyone."
  Accessibility is one area where HTML5 has failed miserably. It would've been so easy to add transcript support to varying new forms of content for example, but instead they remain entirely unaccessible blobs of multimedia to anyone who needs such accessibility support.
  I agree it's silly to say HTML5 is dead or anything like that, even Zuckerberg is not saying that, he's just saying it's too immature a technology right now for what Facebook tried to do. Whether it will remain so is yet to be seen, but HTML5 is far from something that deserves any specific praise, it just about does the job, but if it were a piece of homework it would probably get a C or a D, certainly it's not an A+, A, or even B grade piece of work. It's mediocre at best and none of the benefits WHATWG promised it would offer from hijacking the standards process have borne through - HTML5 is far less representative of people's needs, a far lower quality spec, and has far more implementation issues than previous HTML standards had. Worse, they have now made it a "living" standard, so it's not even necessarily stable which completely defies the point of a spec.
10. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  It also utterly sucks on Android.
11. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by jeffmeden · 2012-09-12 01:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The problem is more complex than that: Mobile devices lack CPU grunt to do things which are easier to do on a desktop systems.
  Because of this the mobile OS builders concentrate what little CPU they do have to make sure their apps run the best as they can at the cost of anything else you may wish to run on top of that. In fact I think they even cripple Javascript on iOS to make sure the OS keeps ticking nicely, for example native scroll events take precendence over Javascript scroll events. I think the main reason that flash was killed in iOS was because it was a closed source CPU hog that they couldn't cripple.
  The only thing that will change this for mobile development is more CPU power, which is difficult if we don't want to have personal hand warmers in our pockets.
  I don't have a problem with JS for application GUI development as long as there is enough juice to run it.
  I suppose that *is* a problem, but really the big thing that Facebook has screwed up in mobile is not having the infrastructure (server side) to push all content as updates to the app. Instead, each time a user wants to browse their wall, they have to download the whole flogging thing again. The absolute biggest threat to mobile experience is the actual content download itself, it requires the user to stand around and wait, and it eats battery like crazy. Twitter got this right, partly because that's the entire model of their service, but if you look at how well their app runs on mobile you kind of get tired of even tolerating Facebook at all.
12. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately, apple loves perception over reality. Sure the app 'pops' up when you click it, but it still takes a few seconds for the app to replace the pictue of the app where clicking on the buttons actually does something. The notes app is the worst. Especially if you have a ton of them. Waiting 5-6 seconds where clicking the note you want to view does absolutely nothing.
13. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by hattig · 2012-09-12 01:07 · Score: 2
  
  Javascript isn't a real problem, it's the developers writing code using it. We're talking about a client application that is mostly doing REST/JSON calls to the main backend servers, and then displaying it in the correct place on the existing page, and persisting it to a HTML5 local DB. Except it didn't do the latter, and all too often lost even the in-memory cache of data, making the app a PITA to use, especially scrolling back in history.
  You only need to look at Twitter clients to realise that timeline-based clients can be written effectively, even in HTML5+JS.
14. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by CapuchinSeven · 2012-09-12 01:12 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Good old Slashdot, never let the facts get in the way of an Apple bash.
15. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by drinkypoo · 2012-09-12 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is, a web thing can have many of the things that we expect from a non-web application these days and usually do it well, things like drag and drop should work smoothly even on most portable platforms if the browser is worth one tenth of one crap.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by CapuchinSeven · 2012-09-12 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Mine works instantly.
17. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by LordLucless · 2012-09-12 01:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions.
  So, basically, blame everyone but the people who wrote the spec? Sounds like the consortium's made up of entire middle-managers.
  HTML5 is the poster-child for designed-by-committee, slow-as-molasses processes that are out-paced by everyone else because, in the real world, things actually need to get done this decade, and the rest of us can't wait. HTML5 has been in development for eight years, and their current target is another two years before it becomes a Candidate Recommendation. Bearing in mind that they've already missed all their previous targets, Ian Hickson estimated that they'd have the requisite two, independent working implementations in 2022. That's eighteen years from start of development, 10 years from now.
  By the time the spec is completed, devices will have been forced to roll their own solutions, simply because the spec isn't done. Now, they might have some inter-operable features, if that aspect of the spec had been fully codified before they had to implement it, but that's precisely the situation we had in the Netscape v. IE browser wars - each had a somewhat common base, but were independently adding new features to try an improve the browser. The features they added were mutually incompatible because there was no common standard - and we're staring straight down that road again. It's a very clear example of perfect being the enemy of good.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
18. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  Kind of like what the Java promise used to be ? :) I sure hope javascript is not the next in line after flash :)
19. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  Javascript is a fine language and there isn't anything inherently wrong with html5 apps. The problem is a very poorly written app from facebook. Their website is nearly as heavy.
  Seriously, open firebug and visit facebook. Count the number of requests that occur. HTTP has too much overhead to do so many requests when displaying a page.
20. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by rtaylor · 2012-09-12 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  It does particularly on the 2.x series.
  Heck, Google Maps (the web based version) didn't run on the browser shipped with Gingerbread. Thankfully FireFox mobile with the UserAgent faker (Googles map servers provided invalid javascript for the default mobile UserAgent) made it work.
  Jelly Bean seems to be fine but it will be a several years before Gingerbread disappears.
  
  --
  Rod Taylor
21. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Shadow99_1 · 2012-09-12 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome for Android actually does rather well, as does firefox for android... It's the default browser that has issues and really should have died with 4.0 (ICS) android, but instead it stays the default (for backwards compatibility) as much as it sucks. Ironically it was also the browser flash worked in up til the most recent android flavor (even Chrome couldn't use flash on a 4.0 setup).
  Facebook probably should have looked at how even Google has a native app for youtube on android and taken a similar route.
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
22. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  Why blame Apple when you can blame Internet Explorer? *cringe*
23. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  It still sucks even on 3.x and 4.x. HTML5 Android apps are easy to spot due to noticeable performance issues.
24. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Elminster+Aumar · 2012-09-12 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  You're on to something: instead, let's blame the current crop of those who keep trying to collaboratively standardize the internet when previous attempts clearly did a better job as evidenced by the amazing websites the 90s produced... The W3C's basic goal / mission is to structure the unstructured (the internet) and create a foundation that essentially accommodates for everything under the sun (i.e. - multiple platforms, multiple resolutions, multiple forms of accessibility for those with impediments, et al.) With this in mind and the many parties associated with this group who all require coordination with the ultimate mission while providing them with the means to fulfill their own aims, I'm surprised they approximated ONLY 18 years! And thank God the consortium is made up of entire middle-managers. We'd all be in frightful straights if they only had their upper torsos to work with! ;.) (I know what you meant.)
25. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by ShanghaiBill · 2012-09-12 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with html5 apps is javascript. That language is just not designed to delopment of huge applications.
  Javascript is not the problem. Plenty of big applications are done in Javascript. The problem is that iOS's implementation of Javascript is quirky, buggy, and almost impossible to debug. There in no error console in a UIWebView. Html5 audio is broken. Canvases don't work quite right. So you can't develop in a browser, and then deploy in an app, because they don't work the same.
  A conspiracy theorist might conclude that Apple is making html5 difficult intentionally, because it is against their interest for developers to create portable apps.
26. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't one particular company's former, now deceased, claim that the HTML5 application store was a viable alternative?
  That's what happens when you listen to the person who has a RDF around it's customers.
27. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Don't get technical, there's no need. They only mention html5 by comparing it with flash for games, one of their big money makers.
28. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2012-09-12 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Uh... You aren't contradicting his valid point. He didn't say HTML5 was failed. He said it was a mistake to do HTML5 to the exclusion of other client platforms. How can you disagree with that? He's running a giant software company - they can support a few platforms. They will have different merits.
  I wish HTML5 fans hadn't convinced the world it was the 2nd coming of Christ. My favorite web apps worked great with HTML4. Now every web page tries to run enough JavaScript to lift itself into orbit.
  
  --
  
  There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
29. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Raenex · 2012-09-12 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  As for his comment, well, let's see him come up with a markup language standard that appeases every vendor while supporting every aspect of media delivery for users. That's not an easy task.
  It doesn't matter how hard the task is. All he said was that it wasn't ready, and it was a mistake for Facebook to use it on mobile. Hate Zuckerberg all you want, but you are arguing a strawman. His position is correct.
30. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by mounthood · 2012-09-12 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  HTML5 is the poster-child for designed-by-committee, slow-as-molasses processes that are out-paced by everyone else because, in the real world, things actually need to get done this decade, and the rest of us can't wait.
  
  HTML5 was compromise of existing implementations and small improvements, adopted because the XHTML standards were being ignored. Your rant is misdirected: HTML5 is a solution to the lack of standards progress, not a cause of it.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#History
  
  --
  tomorrow who's gonna fuss
31. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Fallingcow · 2012-09-12 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Javascript is a fine language
  I'm willing to chalk up a lot of my dislike of Javascript to preference, but its broken-ass scoping is so bad that "fine" is not an adjective that can be used to describe it.
  Its next biggest problem IMO is how often libraries blindly modify built-in objects, but that has more to do with the culture surrounding the language than the language itself.
32. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by tlhIngan · 2012-09-12 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Javascript is not the problem. Plenty of big applications are done in Javascript. The problem is that iOS's implementation of Javascript is quirky, buggy, and almost impossible to debug. There in no error console in a UIWebView. Html5 audio is broken. Canvases don't work quite right. So you can't develop in a browser, and then deploy in an app, because they don't work the same.
  A conspiracy theorist might conclude that Apple is making html5 difficult intentionally, because it is against their interest for developers to create portable apps.
  Or, if you're making an HTML5 app, why are you making a native app be what is effectively a locked-down web browser. Given that the iOS native browser has a better javascript engine (by really dumping priviledges which means it's even more heavily sandboxed), they could just do it as a mobile web site. If people wanted an icon, iOS supports that.
  Even better, no approval needed - anyone who visits facebook.com gets the optoin to visit the mobile version and can set a little popup on how to add the icon to the home screen.
  As a bonus, it works for Android as well.
  You want portable web apps - Apple supports it just fine, and is the Apple-supported method for getting around the App Store. No reason Facebook had to build their own web browser for that stuff.
33. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  "standard that appeases every vendor while supporting every aspect of media delivery for users"
  you mean like Flash?
34. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-09-12 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  let's see him come up with a markup language standard that appeases every vendor while supporting every aspect of media delivery for users.
  That's not an easy task.
  Perhaps not easy for Zuckerberg but it's definitely not a hard task in general, provided that you are allowed to invent it from scratch and only one person is in charge. The problem was just that neither of the two additional conditions were fullfilled in case of HTML5.
35. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-12 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  HTML5 was compromise of existing implementations and small improvements, adopted because the XHTML standards were being ignored. Your rant is misdirected: HTML5 is a solution to the lack of standards progress, not a cause of it.
  HTML5 was pushed through by the very same people who refused to implement the new XHTML standards. So, in that sense, it's a solution to the problem that they have created themselves.
36. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by CastrTroy · 2012-09-12 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, This is how I use Facebook on my (Android) phone. The app is seriously terrible. Always running in the background. Back when I was running it I would basically have to restart my phone once a day. Now that I've completely removed the app, I almost never reboot my phone. Now if I want to check facebook, I'll open their mobile site in my browser. The user experience is pretty much the same, and I don't have to worry about the app bogging down my phone.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
37. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by ShanghaiBill · 2012-09-12 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Or, if you're making an HTML5 app, why are you making a native app be what is effectively a locked-down web browser?
  There are plenty of reasons to do this. The app can use callbacks from the UIWebView to use iOS services such as the accelerometer (tilt, direction, etc.), access a database, use GameCenter, etc. These services are not available from a browser.
  I once tried to do 90% of an app in Html5, and 10% iOS/Android specific. I soon realized it was easier to just do it as a native App on both. A complete reimplementation was easier than getting Html5 to work.
38. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by petsounds · 2012-09-12 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  By the time the spec is completed, devices will have been forced to roll their own solutions, simply because the spec isn't done. Now, they might have some inter-operable features, if that aspect of the spec had been fully codified before they had to implement it, but that's precisely the situation we had in the Netscape v. IE browser wars - each had a somewhat common base, but were independently adding new features to try an improve the browser. The features they added were mutually incompatible because there was no common standard - and we're staring straight down that road again. It's a very clear example of perfect being the enemy of good.
  Yup, and this is exactly why Flash succeeded. It provided a framework for rich applications which worked consistently across all browsers. It sliced through the IE/Netscape proxy war and 'DHTML' was mostly abandoned. We're seeing a repeat with HTML5 -- I mean, we even see sites that are 'Chrome only'. That's not open standards. And it's exactly the kind of broken web we saw in the late '90s.
  And Javascript, well that's a similar problem. Industry players with vested interests sabotaged the open group into doing nothing for 10 years. Adobe threw up their hands after Microsoft roadblocked progress -- Flash's Actionscript shared a common base with Javascript via the ECMAScript standard -- and continued innovating the language on their own.
  Standards committees are okay when academic institutions are the ones hashing out a standard, but when you get vested interests involved, things rarely turn out well...
39. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by farble1670 · 2012-09-12 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Just because HTML5 might have wrinkles to iron out doesn't mean that it's a failed endeavor. Rather, it means that the browsers, companies behind said browsers, and the users have created a massive cluster of epic proportions. The consortium is just trying to make everything more accessible while accommodating for everyone. Again, not an easy task at all.
  but i thought HTML5 was going to fix all of this. with it being one number higher than HTML4 and all.
40. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by alannon · 2012-09-12 10:04 · Score: 2
  
  As someone who's been doing Android app development the last few years, this was the approach that we decided upon for a new thin-client application. An HTML5 based app seems like a good choice when the app is mostly consuming multimedia content, but if you need rich interactivity, a native Java application definitely seemed the better fit.
41. Re:I don't give a Zuck! by smellotron · 2012-09-12 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with html5 apps is javascript. That language is just not designed to delopment of huge applications.
  
  In fairness to javascript, most other languages aren't designed for delopment either.
w3What? by thogard · 2012-09-12 00:19 · Score: 2

The w3c started out describing how web browsers worked and somehow they mistakenly decided they were a standards board. They still get ignored. They will always be ignored fro connivence.
1. Re:w3What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they pretty much are being ignored now after the most recent outcry against their idiocy and slowness.
  WHATWG have, for all intents and purposes, took over since everyone who is worth their weight in salt only cares what the people who have done more than W3C has done in its entire existence have to say in just a few short years, ratio-wise.
  At this rate, we will somehow be on Mars. I don't know how, but WHATWG will make it happen.
  And before people come in moaning about it again, CSS and JS are both moving targets already. HTML was completely rewritten to be extendable from a semantically sensible baseline of elements.
  Things get deprecated quite easily in CSS and JS with no problems either.
  Versionless isn't going to make your life harder. And Microsoft isn't so much a problem anymore either since they have decided to re-enter the browser wars.
  Things aren't going to be deprecated unless a very huge change is made. And that is as equally unlikely to ever happen because of the new changes done to it.
  I hope for everyone that W3C never get in a position of power again. Finally the slow behemoth has been pushed aside so that people can actually do some work instead of beating around the VRML bush.
For Mobile by mlingojones · 2012-09-12 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ooooh. What the article MEANS is "betting on HTML5 as a MOBILE strategy instead of writing native SMARTPHONE applications was a mistake." That's much less broad. Also, as HTML5 is still in its infancy and not yet a finished standard, I think it's kind of early to make this statement.
1. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much what he's saying: HTML5 isn't ready yet and FB was wrong to try to use it on mobile devices instead of native apps.
2. Re:For Mobile by twotailakitsune · 2012-09-12 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook programmers suck at the "view" part of MVC. Don't blame HTML5 for Facebook not knowing what they want to show. They could do just as much with a good view as a mobile app. The good view would put less work on the mobile phone.
3. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  We need to standardize HTML5 to point where we can build dedicated circuitry to render pages at a fraction of the time and power needed today. That would make it feasible as a multi-platform markup language. Now that I'm dreaming, let me go into hardware accelerated Java.
4. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  "betting on HTML5 as a mobile strategy INSTEAD of writing native smartphone applications was a mistake."
  Surely it wasn't beyond Facebook's resources to write:
  *an Android app.
  *an iPhone app. ....AND an HTML5 app
  You know like ... manage risk ... not put all your eggs in one basket .... ect ..ect
5. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. He makes it sound like HTML5 is the problem. The problem is Zuckerberg. He bet on technology which simply doesn't exist yet when he should have been writing quality mobile applications. The Facebook application on Android is notoriously shitty, bloated, resource intensive, and slow. Even Facebook has recently admitted its a total piece of shit application via he recent "ear out own dog food" announcement.
  I completely fail to see how this is a story in the first place.
6. Re:For Mobile by LordLucless · 2012-09-12 01:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  HTML5 is projected to be finished in 2022. By that stage, vendors will have adopted proprietary standards, not because they want to, but because the open standard was simply too damn slow to get done.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
7. Re:For Mobile by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-09-12 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Also, as HTML5 is still in its infancy and not yet a finished standard, I think it's kind of early to make this statement.
  Don't stop believing! Hold on to that feeling!
8. Re:For Mobile by ultrasawblade · 2012-09-12 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  >hardware accelerated Java.
  Already there. Some ARM chips have a technology called Jazelle that can directly execute many Java bytecodes.
  One reason why .NET on ARM CE platforms sucked so hard.
9. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  Kind of early to make the statement that betting on an unfinished standard wasn't a good idea? No, I don't think so.
10. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  that makes far more sense.
  Can TFS be updated to reflect that? I think it substantially changes the meaning of the summary.
11. Re:For Mobile by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Also, as HTML5 is still in its infancy and not yet a finished standard, I think it's kind of early to make this statement.
  You will be long dead, the concept of "computer" will have evolved beyond anything remotely similar to computing today, the need for HTTP to do all this will have long since proven irrelevant, and humanity will have evolved into beings of pure energy and thought, roaming the universe completely free, possibly even beyond the bounds of time as we know it, and HTML5 will still be "just a few years out". The heat death of the universe will be "kind of early" to make that statement.
There are people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:22 · Score: 0

There are people who would really like to see the end of the open internet. Even the W3C recently got behind the position that RAND patents were OK. I'm sure Zuckerberg's comments on performance are true - who didn't already know that browsers are slower than native apps? - but there are other issues in play here.
HTML5 sucks. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:26 · Score: 0

IE6 HTML powered by ActiveX technologies is the superior choice.
1. Re:HTML5 sucks. by jones_supa · 2012-09-12 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny how Microsoft periodically releases a "cumulative security update of ActiveX killbits" to play a whack-a-mole of vulnerable apps created with the MS's technology. ;)
2. Re:HTML5 sucks. by FilmedInNoir · 2012-09-12 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  I've converted all my websites to WML.
  
  --
  Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Biggest mistake - HTML5? by markdowling · 2012-09-12 00:30 · Score: 4, Funny

So not any of FB's many privacy "mistakes" then?
1. Re:Biggest mistake - HTML5? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-09-12 00:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The privacy mistakes don't cost them much money.
2. Re:Biggest mistake - HTML5? by gman003 · 2012-09-12 01:40 · Score: 2
  
  Those weren't mistakes.
I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Qbertino · 2012-09-12 00:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Zuckerberg isn't dumb. This judgement on the whole HTML 5 craze goes to show. Techwise HTML5/CSS3/Ajax is a huge step backwards compared to other approaches, like, for instance, Flash. Flash is proprietary and invites doing all kinds of non-sense (sic), but it *is* a far better x-platform VM.
Going HTML5 is not to be triffled with and will bog down your systems performance way further than other VM solutions such as Java or Flash/AS. Any web developer worth his salt could have told Zuckerberg that.
The "problem" (lets just call it that for now) here is that geeks, i.e. opinion leaders, are willing to make huge technological concessions if the technology is more open than the alternatives. Some devs would rather chop their right arm off than develop against (semi)prorietary systems like iOS or countless versions of Android. Hence we've got native looking apps, that are web UIs in disguise, slowpoking about at speeds we know from Windows 95 Applikations back in the day. I presume Zuckerberg got himself talked into this by his devleads, who are, just like any respectable geek, probably way more concerned with system openess and anti-lock-in development wise than with business critical performance and end-user experience issues. That's my guess anyway.
You can say and think what you want about Zuckerberg and Facebook - I dislike the whole direction thinks have taken with this FB thing just as much as the next geek - but his conclusion is spot on. He's a developer himself and it's to his credit that he recongnises where his company bet on the wrong technology. You have to give him credit for that.
My 2 cents.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
1. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by ledow · 2012-09-12 00:53 · Score: 2
  
  Some would say that those who hedged their bets on HTML5 in the first place, especially from so early on, were the dumb ones and not the naysayers.
  To be honest - I don't see much advantage as a user (the last time I touched HTML seriously was just after CSS became popular, so I don't really speak as a developer here). Take Facebook for example - what do I get from all the fancy code that adorns those pages and slows down my browser (design decisions like Timeline aside)? I get little buttons to hide posts I don't like (that disappear inline) and some tagging technology that's easily replicated.
  Betting the shop on what HTML5 does feature in something like Facebook, and especially on browser compatibility which has been notoriously underwhelming with most HTML/CSS technologies, is quite a dumb technical and business decision. That he recognises this now is sensible, but it's not worthy of much praise.
  All native apps do is take away the unknown of what browser the user is using and what it supports. It's not like they've made apps that somehow magically integrate into Facebook, it's just the same code and a known platform to target (and I bet it isn't even as simple as that and they have problems with them all the time because one can do X that the others can't). So they've ended up hiring a native code writer or dozens for each platform to make a "Facebook browser" rather than a native app - same thing, different angle. And saved nothing in the process. The app could have just done all the donkey work itself and just talked to Facebook via a very basic API of any kind.
  It's not a case of betting on the wrong technology. It's a case of not seeing that he did so a LOT earlier. "I'm going to assume that everyone has a mostly HTML5 compliant browser and program with that assumption" is quite a ridiculous thing to ever say - even today - and then base a huge business on that complete guess.
2. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by twotailakitsune · 2012-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  Two words: section 508.
  A lot of blind people are using iphones and ipads because apple has been pushing better support for people with diffrent needs.
  If you run a flash website, you lose out on a large population of blind users. Facebook wants as many people as they can to use the site.
  HTML5 as part of a good MVC setup lets access to more people with less wasted money on apps for every platform.
3. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Karlt1 · 2012-09-12 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Zuckerberg isn't dumb. This judgement on the whole HTML 5 craze goes to show. Techwise HTML5/CSS3/Ajax is a huge step backwards compared to other approaches, like, for instance, Flash. Flash is proprietary and invites doing all kinds of non-sense (sic), but it *is* a far better x-platform VM."
  So by going Flash for mobile one of two things would have happened....
  1) They would develop a Flash web app that didn't work on a platform that garners 65.9% of the mobile web traffic and was abandoned by Adobe for the other 35%
  or
  2) Been forced to used another runtime (Adobe AIR) that would still not be as performant as a native app.
4. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Spoken like person who has invested a lot of time in Flash. Sorry dude but Javascript is getting faster and Flash's days are numbered.
5. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by subreality · 2012-09-12 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is about mobile apps. They don't even HAVE Flash or other VMs on the iPhone. You either use HTML or write a native app.
6. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by tgibbs · 2012-09-12 01:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the actual quote, it does not sound like Zuckerberg is really down on HTML5 overall. I think, rather, he is saying that the company invested too much time trying to optimize the HTML5 client for mobile clients, when the company was ultimately able to get better performance with less effort by developing native apps.
7. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Stiletto · 2012-09-12 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  The "HTML5 vs. Native controls" nerd-war is currently being waged where I work, and for whatever reason, emotions really run high on this one. It's much uglier than Windows vs. Linux or whose text editor is best. It's a fight over whose skills are relevant. When half of your developers are HTML/Javascript people and the other half are Obj-C/C/Java (native) people, and a new mobile project is proposed, every tech lead makes passioned arguments that THEIR TEAM should get the project and that those other teams' chosen technology is unsuitable. I don't even want to think about how much time/salary has been wasted arguing over this shit.
8. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  I too agree with him, but not because of HTML5. I think he just has this tendency to sound like he's blaming everyone and everything but himself, when he clearly doesn't believe that.
  Plenty of companies have benefited from HTML5, especially ones that were able to drop ActiveX and Flash-based solutions (contrary to your thesis that Flash is so much better, it hit a brick wall years ago).
  I also feel you're being rather cute to blame devs on this one. It's the fault of everyone in Facebook management for stubbornly letting the problem exist. Now they're digging themselves into the opposite hole, slowly but surely.
9. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Atzanteol · 2012-09-12 02:00 · Score: 2
  
  Zuckerberg isn't dumb. *HE* probably would have read the article before posting and realized this is about mobile apps and not the main Facebook.com web site.
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
10. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Not that you'd be able to tell by the quality (or lack of such) of their HTML5.
11. Re:I'd second that. He's spot on with this. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-13 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you are defending Flash on a discussion about mobile apps shows how little clue you actually have on the subject, yet you put yourself in a higher ground and claim how clueless FB developers are about "end-user experience" and "business critical performance".
  **massive facepalm**
Amen!! by willie3204 · 2012-09-12 00:39 · Score: 1

Definitely not why their stock price has gone down but technology wise a very correct statement.
The sight is slower than slow

--
The answer to all your problems
So HTML5 is not very optimised by Rosy+At+Random · 2012-09-12 00:39 · Score: 1

Maybe I am being dense, but surely there is some way to optimise it. Better machine-specific interpretors, the kind of pre-execution optimisation that compilers do, anything....

--
Would you like a slice of toast?
1. Re:So HTML5 is not very optimised by Urza9814 · 2012-09-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Short of creating a system to write in HTML5 then compile that down into native code -- not really.
  HTML is, by nature, portable and unpredictable. You don't know the user's screen resolution, for example. You don't know the browser size or version. You don't know what fonts they'll have installed. You don't know a lot of things.
  On a native app, especially for a mobile device -- you generally know most of that. Especially for something like iOS, you can pretty much assume everyone will have the same screen size, the same browser, the same fonts, the same UI, the same system libraries...and all that knowledge gives you a LOT of areas where you can optimize that just can't exist for pure HTML.
HTML5 by jones_supa · 2012-09-12 00:39 · Score: 1

I can understand why Zuck feels more comfortable on putting effort on the native mobile FB apps. AJAX has always been a hacky, bloated way to create interactive applications. I wish we had something more suited for the purpose.
1. Re:HTML5 by supremebob · 2012-09-12 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just glad that they're finally working on the issue. The Facebook apps for both iOS and Android were complete rubbish, and was often both faster and more reliable just to use the mobile version of the web site.
  The new iOS version of the app seems a lot more responsive. I hope that they do something similar for Android soon.
Magic native app networking by LDoggg_ · 2012-09-12 00:44 · Score: 2

"'the benefits of cross-platform development weren't enough to outweigh the downsides of HTML5, which pulls in data much more slowly than native code," Pulls in data much more slowly?

Is he talking overhead of HTTP headers? Handshaking on websockets?

The worst part of the facebook app has been the fact that when you load it up it wipes out the screen of any data you had last time, then pulls in a full new set over a crappy mobile network connection which very often timed out. Had the app cached (HTML5 localStorage?) postings and displayed what you already had, while trying to get new ones, it would have been much more useful.

He can blame HTML5 all he wants, but poor design decisions could be made for any language and platform.

--

"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
1. Re:Magic native app networking by farble1670 · 2012-09-12 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Handshaking on websockets?
  probably not, since websockets are only supported on modern browsers (IE just started supporting it in v10), and facebook has to support, well, everything.
2. Re:Magic native app networking by LDoggg_ · 2012-09-13 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Point was that "pulls in data much more slowly" is a lame excuse. Their app was coded like crap. Blaming the tech they chose instead of the developers was silly.
  
  --
  
  "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
Re:BS by nstlgc · 2012-09-12 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

What you're saying is "I don't need it, so nobody needs it". I hope you know how stupid that sounds.

--
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
Re:Whatever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:46 · Score: 1

You both have no class.
Whole quote by simplexion · 2012-09-12 00:47 · Score: 2

“When I’m introspective about the last few years I think the biggest mistake that we made, as a company, is betting too much on HTML5 as opposed to native because it just wasn’t there. And it’s not that HTML5 is bad. I’m actually, on long-term, really excited about it. One of the things that’s interesting is we actually have more people on a daily basis using mobile Web Facebook than we have using our iOS or Android apps combined. So mobile Web is a big thing for us.”
1. Re:Whole quote by ledow · 2012-09-12 00:59 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Nothing to do with their Android app once wiping out your phone contact's email addresses and replacing them with @facebook.com equivalents?
  People use the web version not because it's more convenient but because it's safer and you KNOW what it has access to.
2. Re:Whole quote by Almahtar · 2012-09-12 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yep! Another fun one: I wasn't happy at all when it decided to update my profile with my phone number, when I'd been making sure to keep my phone number far away from my profile for years. It didn't ask. Thanks, Facebook, for sharing my private information with who knows how many people without asking or warning me. Fuck that app.
Re:BS by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-09-12 00:48 · Score: 0

Unlike slashdot, Facebook is all about delivering other people's endless drivel. And phones are one way to deliver it.
Anything that causes pain for Zuckerberg is fine by iBod · 2012-09-12 00:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Anything that causes pain for Zuckerberg is fine by me.
Yeah! Go HTML5!
HTML 5 Java by crovira · 2012-09-12 00:51 · Score: 0

HTML5 is roughly equivalent to Java as far as a multi-platform programming language and development platform.
Java has been dying the death of a thousand cuts since its inception. Its latest suffering through mismanagement at/in the hands of Oracle doesn't hide the fact that the JIT interpiler isn't worth sh*t. (The only successful approach I've ever encountered to using a virtual machine was employed by the Digitalk VM which cached successive VM invocations so that you ran at native 'raw iron" machine speeds after encountering the performance hit the first and only time an pseudo-instruction was executed in a method.)
The lethal performance problems that WordPerfect encountered trying to implement their suite of office products in Java still apply.
HTML5 is doomed to suffer the same fate regardless of how many spare CPU cycles we throw at it because its fundamentally not parsimonious enough with response time.

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
android by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 00:58 · Score: 0

as a user of the Android FB app, I agree with this sentiment. The app is one of the most unresponsive and slow apps I've ever used.
Facebook never bet on HTML5 by groovepapa · 2012-09-12 01:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Does anyone remember the convoluted rambling of Dave Fetterman at f8 developer conference last year? No? Here it is again:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/09/how-facebook-mobile-was-design.php
TL;DR:

"So, how does this work? Project FaceWeb is an extension of this progressive enhancement idea. So, instead of the phone saying I am rendering for a WebKit browser, we send an agent that says you are going to be rendering for a WebKit UI WebKit view inside the iPhone app. So, what you have to do is detect that, style a Web code to make that work, build a bridge between the things that you want to write to interact natively with the Objective-C, say in Javascript, then build HTML pages for Facebook in the iPhone. So, you build much smaller native goop instead of having to build over and over again. ... HTML5 is probably the way that we should have done it."

If you think that's an HTML5 approach, I have some lean agile behavior-driven coaching hours for which I'd like to bill you.
Blame? by theurge14 · 2012-09-12 01:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Facebook is a webpage, not a 3D game that pushes the hardware. Is it possible he is blaming the technology for the failure of his coders? After all, we're talking about an app that when you viewed the comments on a photo you had to back out and come back several times in order for it to "refresh". Or sometimes clicking on a friend's name would take you to an entirely unrelated part of the app. And photos would take ages to load. Sometimes entering in a comment would work, sometimes it would say "you can't comment on something that doesn't exist" even though you could open up Facebook on a desktop computer and make a comment in the same place without a problem. I don't know of any other "webpage" app on the iPhone that performed that poorly, and granted I don't know what the Google+ app used but in comparison it blew the doors off of the Facebook app. Was it really the technology to blame?
1. Re:Blame? by pmathew · 2012-09-12 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly .. if my browser can render html version of facebook in a snappy way and the facebook app cant .. it just means the facebook app is not good at rendering html 5 not that html 5 is bad .. bad worker blaming tools i guess ...
Re:BS by arth1 · 2012-09-12 01:08 · Score: 1

What you're saying is "I don't need it, so nobody needs it". I hope you know how stupid that sounds.
While true, you could invalidate his statement by giving just one example of someone who needs it.
I obey gravity, so everybody obeys gravity.
whats concerning is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:10 · Score: 0

Why is the CEO of an advertising company talking about this stuff? Isn't that his CIO's job?
D'oh, Thick client vs thin client by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:17 · Score: 0

I think you and Zuck are confusing thick versus thin client. The same html5 app on desktop works fine. Smarphones don't have that much power to handle thick javascript app - simple as that. Move some of the stuff off to the server and your app performance improves (at a cost of responsiveness).
If mobile is your main problem - with this amount of cash I would be writing in parallel apps in html5, ios, android and win8.
D'oh!
Re:Whatever by Kagetsuki · 2012-09-12 01:19 · Score: 0

Why do you think he's here with us?
HTML5 by interval1066 · 2012-09-12 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

So that's it? Snotty but successfull kid declares html5 a toss and that's it? I've noticed a few other people making comments that they're disappointed by html5. Its a bit early to make that determination yet I think.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
sounds like a faceplant approach by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 01:27 · Score: 0

ROFL
Well next time by Anarchduke · 2012-09-12 01:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do your homework and your HTML5 implementation wont suck.

--
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
1. Re:Well next time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  Do your homework and your HTML5 implementation wont suck.
  Every HTML5 implementation will suck, until such time as it has matured as far as Flash has.
  Right now, HTML5 is just a whole new wonderland of undiscovered exploits.
  At least I can disable Flash without having to cripple the whole browser. Good luck doing that with HTML5, when the whole base language the browser speaks migrates to the insecure (and slow) beast that you want to be protected from.
Re:Whatever by Type44Q · 2012-09-12 01:30 · Score: 0

Maybe he's hoping our obvious class will rub off on him! :)
Flash by Dj+Stingray · 2012-09-12 01:32 · Score: 2

Iunno, I found it ironic that when Flash first came out, it was a way to create and inbed animation and sound into a website with very little weight. I actually used to make Flash sites actually smaller than HTML ones with raster graphics.
Then everyone decided to make Flash sites really heavy. Instead of going the route I thought it would go. The computers and the internet back then were too slow to handle those sites.
Now that we have the bandwidth and computing power, everyone seems to be bashing on Flash. When it is the best developer tool for vector based animation around. It's all backwardsy to me. I didn't expect it to be such a big deal that Adobe bought Macromedia.
Re:HTML 5 Java by Xest · 2012-09-12 01:40 · Score: 5, Informative

"HTML5 is roughly equivalent to Java as far as a multi-platform programming language and development platform."
No, not in the slightest. Not even close
"The only successful approach I've ever encountered to using a virtual machine was employed by the Digitalk VM which cached successive VM invocations so that you ran at native 'raw iron" machine speeds after encountering the performance hit the first and only time an pseudo-instruction was executed in a method.".
When did you last read anything about the JVM? 1995?
"The lethal performance problems that WordPerfect encountered trying to implement their suite of office products in Java still apply."
No, no they don't. That was the best part of a decade before Hotspot even came along, which was basically a complete rewrite.
You could've typed your post about 15 years ago, and you might've had a point. Now however, your post makes absolutely no sense, and shows an understanding that only someone who had literally been living under a rock for 15 years would have. Java has changed a lot since 1997, and your criticism is nonsensical in the context of those changes.
BlackBerry FTW! by acoustix · 2012-09-12 01:45 · Score: 1

BlackBerry has had a native client since 2008 and it is solid. It ties in with BB's unified inbox and can interact with other apps like BBM if you choose to do so.
Once again, iOS is 4 years behind.

--
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
didn't do their homework? by blackfrancis75 · 2012-09-12 01:49 · Score: 2

Why would a billion dollar company bet on anything in this manner?
If there was technical uncertainty before they embarked on the HTML5 route - why wouldn't they have done extensive feasibility testing before commencing? Lord knows they have the resources.
FB isn't developed by dumb or naive people - unless there's a realistic answer to this, I guess we can only assume he's bad-mouthing HTML5 for his own (nefarious) purposes.
1. Re:didn't do their homework? by farble1670 · 2012-09-12 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  If there was technical uncertainty before they embarked on the HTML5 route - why wouldn't they have done extensive feasibility testing before commencing? Lord knows they have the resources.
  good point. and moreover, why not just build both native and web and see what people like? they have the cash.
He is showing his age .... lack of experience by Monoman · 2012-09-12 01:56 · Score: 1

If he had been around awhile he would have known that when you hear "write once & run anywhere" that it may not be all it claims to be.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
html5 good for startups, not for a mature company by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:10 · Score: 0

HTML5 gets in into the mobile market fast. It is great for small companies that want to test an idea, or apps that really don't need full functionality. However, if your company is as big as FB, I'm surprise they didn't switch to native much sooner.
Fix Facebook on Firefox 3.6 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:22 · Score: 0

How about now they can fix the JavaScript errors on Firefox 3.6?
1. Re:Fix Facebook on Firefox 3.6 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  How about you update your browser to a version that isn't two and a half years old?
2. Re:Fix Facebook on Firefox 3.6 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Firefox 3.6 is EOL since April. It won't work with NCSA mosaic either grandpa.
Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:24 · Score: 0

Yep, typical for the fucktarded shitdot sheeple to mod my comment down because it slaps the fucktarded communist loving, fudge packing, twinkie sucking faggots of shitdot. Yet dipshits like twitter and spun get modded up all the time because they are for communism and communist open-sores. Of course they are a bunch of fucktards who should go and collectively slit their fucking wrists.
GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER
YET GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE
Bad design for Mobile worse than HTML5 for mobile by DragonWriter · 2012-09-12 02:41 · Score: 1

What the article MEANS is "betting on HTML5 as a MOBILE strategy instead of writing native SMARTPHONE applications was a mistake."
And its still wrong, IMO. The biggest mistake in Facebook's mobile app isn't performance issues linked to HTML5 (or any other source), its that the navigation sucks, the presentation of information sucks for a mobile device screen, and they keep increasing the screen real-estate taken up by things that are either UI or ads, which compounds the problem of the poor presentation of the content of interest.
FB Android App and Security Problems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 02:42 · Score: 0

Until Facebook pulls back on their decision to require allowing any access to my SMS messages on my phone, I will NOT be updating to any of their new apps. What legitimate purpose in the WORLD would Facebook have to access my personal SMS messages??????? This should be illegal.
What all us old Flash folk laugh about... by PortHaven · 2012-09-12 02:42 · Score: 1, Flamebait

HTML5 - it's the holy grail!!!!
Truthfully, the more and more I hear, the more and more #fail seems to be laid at HTML5's feet.
It's immature, and poorly conceptualized. Let me just simply say, it's bad design mojo. And truthfully, if so many Slashdotters actually LOOKED at where Flash and Flex were headed, they'd see it was going in a far far more intelligent direction than HTML5.
Consider this, what's the difference between a radio button and a checkbox? Usually, in HTML, one is a select one, and the other is a select any. But the truth is, that there should not be the distinguishment there. And often, HTML developers are forced to recreated radio button behavior with checkboxes for clients or go into elaborate styling of radio buttons. Essentially, recreating the objects. What about lists? Selectbox, multiselect box.
Is there ANY difference between a radio and selectbox, a list of checkboxes and a multiselect box?
NO!!!!
Simply have a list item, and then define whether it is multiselect. All the styling and visual presentation should be separate.
The truth is what is really being utilized is a select list, or multi select list. The display should be separate from the model (basic rudimentary MVC concepts here). Does HTML/HTML5 do this? Nope, but in fact Flex was going in this direction. Rather than add tons of new input types like the bassackward HTML5 standard did. Flex was in f
Timeline by CanEHdian · 2012-09-12 02:43 · Score: 1

...it's the forced use of Timeline that really is killing Facebook. There's just no real alternative yet.

--
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
1. Re:Timeline by Alkonaut · 2012-09-12 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  Am I missing something in this whole timeline-hate thing? Aren't 99.9% of all users spending 99.9% of their time in the "news feed" view of facebook? That didn't change with timeline? For me, a timeline only appears on the profile page, a page I don't really see a point in visiting.
i call BS by shadowrat · 2012-09-12 02:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

HTML5, which pulls in data much more slowly than native code
How can this be? HTML5 is not relegated to some throttled network interface. the data all comes through the same pipe. I've made plenty of html5 implementations that had small streamlined exchanges of data with the server. My observations indicate that the facebook apps just pull in obscene amounts of unoptimized crap.

Well, since it's facebook data, i guess no implementation can get around the fact that you are pulling down crap.
1. Re:i call BS by sheddd · 2012-09-12 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  They put a lot of effort into multithreading and caching stuff before you ask for it; I saw a cooler writeup and can't find it... but here's one from Facebook's Blog.
2. Re:i call BS by uradu · 2012-09-12 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  Actually from all my observations their Achilles heel is their slow-ass web services. Both the desktop and mobile web apps initially load quickly enough, it's the subsequent data pulls via web services to refresh GUI fragments that lag badly. Haven't checked the granularity of their services, but on mobile fine granularity is particularly bad because of the typically atrocious latency (although LTE is heaps better than HSPA). Regardless, even in the desktop site you can see these ws call latencies, when you click to view a detail and sometimes it pops up instantly, sometimes you get the spinner cycling endlessly with apparently nothing happening and you eventually have to F5 the site. Their ws API has always sucked lemons and that's biting them in the ass particularly badly with mobile.
3. Re:i call BS by dave87656 · 2012-09-13 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder how much the reliance on PHP affects their performance. I know they have a PHP compiler in place and probably cache byte code in places where it's not compiled, but it still makes be wonder if PHP is/could be a bottleneck. And I think they were complaining about mysql at one point too. They've done a lot to speed it up but there are some limitations they just couldn't get around.
Too bad they can't code for native... by nighthawk243 · 2012-09-12 02:44 · Score: 1

The recent Facebook App (on Android at least) is right now a buggy piece of crap that force closes often. I'm on a version several releases behind because of it (hooray for Titanium backup).
Nah nah nah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:00 · Score: 0

HTML5 has issues with moble devices? :D w0w .... haven't noticed ...maybe 'cose i'm with N900 ...and i'm running firefox :)
My best to all iPhone users :) Go get a real phone ....with multitasking!
Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 03:34 · Score: 0

No, no, guys, hang on, this is just getting hilarious now. So, Mr. AC, do tell us, preferably before you suffer an aneurysm, how is this "marxism by fucktarded twitter/spun clones"? Whatever a "spun clone" is.
Oh man, this response gonna be GREAT...
Re:Old School by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-09-12 03:46 · Score: 1

Wow, an IUMA reference.... anyone for URouLette?
Zuckerberg is wrong about HTML5...again by dtjohnson · 2012-09-12 03:57 · Score: 1

The software (and a consistent user experience) is waaaay more important than the hardware. Five years hence, we will be running on new, stronger, and faster hardware and the ability to move the HTML5 stuff along to the new hardware will be key. How many times in the past have we seen people complaining about the performance in the present and then new hardware appears almost immediately that makes the performance 5x faster, providing that the software will run on the new hardware? There's a reason why x86 is still the most widely-used set of instructions, decades after 8088 processors have gone to the scrap heap. So...Zuckerberg was wrong to move to HTML5 too quickly and he's wrong...again...for dumping it.
1. Re:Zuckerberg is wrong about HTML5...again by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  in 5 years, with 3GHZ cpu and html5 still suck.
2. Re:Zuckerberg is wrong about HTML5...again by dave87656 · 2012-09-13 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Zuckerberg never said anything about HTML5 performance. That was mashable. The header is very misleading. Zuckerberg was talking about mobile vrs desktop.
Really? by xXShadowstormXx · 2012-09-12 04:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Really? Betting on HTML5 was Facebook's biggest mistake? You sure about that?

--
I see dead pixels!
HTML5 sucks for apps by DrXym · 2012-09-12 04:16 · Score: 2

You can usually tell an app which is implemented in HTML5 because it just doesn't behave the way a native app does. Either the fonts are wrong, or it feels sluggish, or the menus are different, or the keyboard is inappropriate for the context or it's just off in some other way. I'm not surprised at all that a company with the resources of Facebook struggles to unify all the disparate HTML5 implementations on all the disparate operating systems and devices. There are probably so many differences, glitches and performance issues that perhaps they may have been better off using some other technology.
Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:19 · Score: 0

Wow, how can I "suffer an aneurysm[sic]" if I am as cool as acucumber, lauging at you communist loving fucktards self destruct from anger at the truth that I post? It's almost as if you are a group of asspies. How is it marxism? Simple you communist piece of shit. Fucktards like you, spun and twitter hate capitalism and embrace communist open sores. Facebook is capitalism and not communist open sores so you fucktarded shitdot sheeple will all be against Facebook. Of course you are a bunch of communist loving fucktards who should go and collectively slit your fucking wrists.
GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MOD POINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER
YET GO SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE
MySpace was shit, even compared to Facebook by cbhacking · 2012-09-12 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

You badly, badly misremember the awfulness of MySpace. Please don't make me post this more than once, the memories are painful...
Embedded Flash objects in the page. Lots of them. All set to auto-play when the page loads. Facebook doesn't allow embedding arbitrary content, and doesn't allow auto-playing video on your page either.
Incredibly atrocious CSS, like text that ballooned to 40pt on hover or that was in incredibly unreadable fonts, or covered up / replaced navigation links on the page... Facebook doesn't allow custom styling.
I'm not sure if this is the fault of ColdFusion or just of MySpace programmers being incredibly shitty, but every 5-10 navigations on MySpace would usually result in a server error. Sometimes, you'd get a server error when the server tried to serve the error page! Facebook has had occasional stability issues, and PHP is lame (but then, apparently very little of their backend is still PHP), but it's rock-solid by comparison.
Back when MySpace was hemmorhaging users to Facebook, there was a limit on the number of pictures you could host on MySpace. Considering that one of the main uses of Facebook for some people seems to be "host every single picture my phone can take" you can see why this appeals.
Strange though it may be to think of Facebook and security together, they beat the pants off MySpace, which has such glamorous characteristics as being the first site to host an in-the-wild XSS worm (because it was trivial to inject script into your page, and somebody figured out how to exploit that).

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
1. Re:MySpace was shit, even compared to Facebook by Dragonslicer · 2012-09-12 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Points taken. Facebook's pages will probably never be quite as bad as the worst of MySpace. I still maintain that Timeline is the same kind of cluttered, unparseable mess that most MySpace pages were, though it doesn't have any of the eyeball-searing insanity that MySpace users thought was cool.
2. Re:MySpace was shit, even compared to Facebook by styrotech · 2012-09-12 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if this is the fault of ColdFusion or just of MySpace programmers being incredibly shitty, but every 5-10 navigations on MySpace would usually result in a server error. Sometimes, you'd get a server error when the server tried to serve the error page!
  Now that you mention it, Coldfusion seems to have behind more HTTP 500 errors I've noticed over the years than any other platform. Which is impressive given it's relatively small market share.
3. Re:MySpace was shit, even compared to Facebook by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-09-12 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the "private" pages on Orkut, which were anything but, as the 5 minutes it took to write a JS bookmarklet demonstrated quite handily.
  Even after I published the exploit, people refused to believe anything b-b-b-but Orkut says it's PRIVATE!!
  Good times.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It wasn't writing the app but releasing it. by 91degrees · 2012-09-12 04:49 · Score: 2

There was no need to release the crappy HTML5 based app. The previous version was adequate. Maybe it didn't have all the features facebook would have liked, but it had the essential ones people wanted to use from their smartphones. Facebook doesn't rely on having the most sophisticated software.

The incredible badness of the app should have been obvious from testing, and they should have rewritten it as a native app intead of releasing it.
Zucks biggest mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 04:50 · Score: 0

Selling out your users data and privacy to the highest bidder.
1. Re:Zucks biggest mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  millions of people give you their personal details without even thinking about it, despite the fact you made them agree to let you do anything you want with em.
  and now its mistake to profit off that?
Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 06:47 · Score: 0

lol. u mad?
Herd Mentality by JohnnyOpcode · 2012-09-12 07:24 · Score: 0

With HTML5 on mobile you will quickly hit a performance wall on anything advanced and interactive. It will always be like this for the simple reason Steve Jobs wanted everyone to drink the Koolaid and come into his walled garden with native apps. Flash on mobile would have held the door open to web-delivery of very advanced apps (using frameworks like Flex), but the dark forces undermined that ever happening. The Apple (and Android) App Store are commercial empires being built on the blood and sweat of the slave race or programmers. I bet the iPhone 5 still can't run anything HTML5 heavy in it's native browser.

Johnny
The main argument against "Apple is a bubble" by mbkennel · 2012-09-12 07:26 · Score: 1

Is that Price/Earnings ratio of the stock has not been exceptionally high even when Apple's revenue increased dramatically.
"When the media starts calling Apple at a $1 trillion market cap or how about $2000 a share it’s the same thing as the cabbie telling you to buy Apple."
Not quite. You can get $1 trillion market cap by a fairly simple extrapolation of iPhone penetration further into world markets. No large changes in Apple's business model or assumptions about large changes in customer's behavior.
Current market cap is currently over $600 billion.
1. Re:The main argument against "Apple is a bubble" by Jack9 · 2012-09-12 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  > Is that Price/Earnings ratio of the stock has not been exceptionally high even when Apple's revenue increased dramatically.
  That's because Apple has spent the money when they get it. A high P/E is a sign of a stagnated product line. In a commodity, this is great. In technology, It's not always favorable.
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
cognitive number ad for small screen by jmeiers · 2012-09-12 07:58 · Score: 0

he should put cognitive number ads like this link
Re:HTML 5 Java by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 10:52 · Score: 0

Maybe /. will take up a collection so you can upgrade your 386/20. The rest of us have hit a limit of network bandwidth over Javascript performance for basic "app" functionality years ago...
Well... by noobermin · 2012-09-12 14:22 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/927/
It's just that "soon" is taking a bit of a while to happen.
Thought and clearly changed his mind... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 19:00 · Score: 0

Yet, they chose to go the native Apps route... long before Facebook. Learn from others, I say.
Talk about misleading by dave87656 · 2012-09-13 16:44 · Score: 2

Zuckerberg didn't say HTML5 wasn't ready. They stuck in a mashable quote hoping to make it look like it was Zuckerbergs.
Zuckerberg did say native but he was clearly talking about mobile apps (which are of course native).
C'mon Slashdot, that kind of stuff really makes you look bad.
Facebook Errors by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-14 06:24 · Score: 0

Facebook's biggest error was Zuckerberg's basic lack of understanding of individual privacy, and how important privacy is to most of us.