Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MySpace's Melting Makes Murdoch Mad

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the ems-on-monday dept.

Social Networks 346

Barence writes "Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time — provoking an angry outburst from Rupert Murdoch, the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago."

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mad? Really? (5, Interesting)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904063)

I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad. Nice use of alliteration though. I did find this article about the difference in growth [zdnet.com.au] between the two sites and it has a lot more information about the situation in general, though nothing about Murdoch's reaction. I couldn't find anything more about that - like where and when he said the things they say he said, what the tone was, etc.

Re:Mad? Really? (5, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904209)

FTA:

Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time - provoking an angry outburst from the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago
They don't seem to detail the contents of his outburst, or at least the angry part. However, these lines indicate that the journalist is reporting Rupert Murdoch as "angry", which is closely synonymous with "mad."

Re:Mad? Really? (5, Funny)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904373)

Maybe Rupert Murdoch wrote conveyed his anger with Facebook's success in REALLY BIG LETTERS!!!111oneoneone

Re:Mad? Really? (0, Redundant)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904425)

the journalist is reporting Rupert Murdoch as "angry", which is closely synonymous with "mad."

Some tongue other than English being my native language, I am always thankful for hints to improve on my skills. Though ...

CC.

Re:Mad? Really? (5, Funny)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904913)

"Murdoch Mostly Mopes; Missing Money Makes Monday More Melancholy."

Slashdot submission sure sucks.

Re:Mad? Really? (4, Informative)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904215)

I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad.
Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace"

=)

Re:Mad? Really? (4, Insightful)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904263)

No kidding, most of the emotion seems to come from the article writer, using terms like 'fumes', 'angry outburst' and 'exasperated'. Does PC Pro actually know Rupert Murdoch enough to know that he's exasperated? They seem to be creating emotion and their own context.

Re:Mad? Really? (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904469)

Well, that's because Rupert is the Evil (tm) owner of Fox News (Faux for lefties), so anything that makes him look More Evil (TM)(C) is okay.

Duh!

Re:Mad? Really? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904771)

We call it "Faux" news because it is. Learn this: Fox went to court and defended its right to knowingly broadcast untruth as news because the law does not specifically say they can't. Again, in case you still don't get it: Fox defended its right to broadcast lies that they knew were lies.

And that, among other reasons*, is why it is "faux".

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf [2dca.org]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/ [foxbghsuit.com]

* blending opinion with news and calling it objective
    putting only one political view on the air and calling themselves "balanced"
    reporting as factual news (and almost verbatim) the "talking points" released by the GOP

Re:Mad? Really? (1)

Monoman (8745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904933)

"Faux for lefties"? I may not speak on behalf of all left-handed people but I am pretty sure most of us take offense to your statement. You insensitive clod.

Never let (2, Funny)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904505)

facts get in the way of a good bit of sensationalism.

Interesting bit of irony, that (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904691)

Having that statement applied TO Rupert Murdoch, rather than BY Rupert Murdoch.

Re:Mad? Really? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904803)

Rupert Murdoch is always all of those things, so probably so. Maybe he should stick to tabloid news for the unwashed masses and leave Teh Internets to the unwashed geeks :-P

Re:Mad? Really? (3, Insightful)

Bombula (670389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904623)

Nice use of alliteration though

Speaking of alliteration, I think one reason why MySpace is doomed to play second fiddle is because it's simply harder to say to someone that you put your pictures "on my MySpace page" than "on my Facebook page."

Or maybe I'm just being silly, who knows.

Re:Mad? Really? (1)

GeffDE (712146) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904963)

Most people I talk to say "I put my pictures on Facebook" or (if they had MySpace pages), "I put my pictures on MySpace." Users of both pages know you can only add content to your own page, so saying that you put it on MySpace is equivalent to saying you put it on your MySpace page.

Just my 2 cents.

Post... (5, Funny)

mr_nazgul (1290102) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904073)

Maybe he should rant about it on his Facebook page.

Facebook won't last (4, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904105)

Facebook is on it's way out too. I stopped using it when the plethora of stupid dirty looking applications starting taking over everybody's pages making facebook look more like myspace.

Now facebook is even spammier than myspace, with hundreds of applications I can't stand, and all their invites. I have to "add" an application in order to view it. I don't want to view it. I don't want a "drink" invitation, or a "pirate" invitation. Leave me alone.

This is why I quit Facebook [fredrickville.com]

Re:Facebook won't last (2, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904259)

The moral of the story is, if you're going to do the bait and switch thing on the internet, you better get your money back out faster than Mr Murdoch did.

Re:Facebook won't last (5, Informative)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904287)

You can actually opt out of the Facebook API entirely and then you won't recieve anymore invites or anything else since the applications can't "see" you.

Re:Facebook won't last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904351)

MySpace not long ago added applications to their list of annoyances. Several of my friends on their already have eight or nine application boxes on their profile, which makes it take forever to load their page and sort through their profile.

Really, I don't think it's possible for one to beat out the other, really. There's enough users on both to keep them running, and as long as they keep their intended purpose for atleast a few people then nothing drastic is going to change.

Re:Facebook won't last (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904553)

Neither of them will disappear entirely. One isn't going to crush the other. What's going to happen is that the masses will get tired of both of them, and move on to something new. There will still be some plenty of diehards who refuse to switch, and most of their current users will still keep and check on their accounts every once-in-a-while. But the bulk of the daily traffic will move to some newer, lightweight site that has a couple of novel ideas/features. And that site will be the big thing until it gets too bloated and tired, and then the cycle will repeat itself again.

Re:Facebook won't last (4, Funny)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904761)

and move on to something new

I recommend "friendster" :P

Re:Facebook won't last (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904909)

Why in the fuck is this +4 Insightful? All he did was reword the parent post, you stupid fucks.

Re:Facebook won't last (5, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904363)

All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. And that's what happens. The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic, and more and more people keep joining just because their friends told them they should.

The ratio of signal to noise gets skewed to the point where it becomes hard to use, and that combined with the general fickleness of people (especially the younger people that make up a significant portion of the userbase), means that the eyeballs go elsewhere. And at the end of the day, nothing that myspace or facebook or any social networking site does is really all that complicated. There are plenty of other websites out there that are offering ways to communicate with other people.

I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but the churn and turn over seems to be pretty consistent. Before facebook everyone talked about myspace. Before myspace everyone talked about orkut. Before orkut everyone talked about livejournal, etc... All those sites still exist, but today facebook is the one that people are writing headlines about. A couple years down the line some new upstart will be getting all the attention. It's just the way it is, and investing in one of these sites like it's going to be the next amazon or google is pretty silly.

Re:Facebook won't last (3, Insightful)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904693)

"The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic"

In my experience, once the profiteering mentality starts, website costs have absolutely nothing to do with increased advertising and commercialisation.

Unless you're running a site like youtube or a warez site etc., server & bandwidth costs are never that significant and a simple unobtrusive banner ad or 'donate' button pays for it. It's people trying to convince investors their website is soon to make billions that leads to the ad spamming and "premium service" rubbish.

Re:Facebook won't last (5, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904815)

"All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. "

You just summed up almost all businesses in general, not just social networking ones.....

Re:Facebook won't last (1)

orielbean (936271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904901)

The tragedy of the commons writ large on the world wide web.

Re:Facebook won't last (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904401)

Facebook is on it's way out too. I stopped using it when the plethora of stupid dirty looking applications starting taking over everybody's pages making facebook look more like myspace.

Now facebook is even spammier than myspace, with hundreds of applications I can't stand, and all their invites. I have to "add" an application in order to view it. I don't want to view it. I don't want a "drink" invitation, or a "pirate" invitation. Leave me alone.

  This is why I quit Facebook [fredrickville.com]

Murdoch? Is that you?

Re:Facebook won't last (4, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904475)

Murdoch? Is that you?
If Murdoch have that kind of insight, would he own Myspace right now?

Re:Facebook won't last (1)

AkaKaryuu (1062882) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904663)

But without such informative information such as "Funnest Friend" and "Best Drinker", how will I know which high school friends I should devote my time too?

Re:Facebook won't last (5, Funny)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904685)

Leave me alone.
Not feeling social?

Re:Facebook won't last (2)

UltraAyla (828879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904789)

They've implemented a way to block requests from specific people or applications now. I mostly just ignore them because I hate them too, and they've made it very easy for me to do this.

Re:Facebook won't last (1)

rubah (1197475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904859)

They've added a 'ignore all application requests' button which does away with all that nonsense :)

Maybe it's because (5, Insightful)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904129)

People are tired of being linked to a page that has crappy layout, crappy embedded video or music that plays automatically, is full of lolspeak and/or textype, and is so random that it makes a schizophrenic feel confused.

oh wait.......

Re:Maybe it's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904501)

DIE MYSPACE DIE!!

Re:Maybe it's because (2, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904713)

You forgot about the part where everyone's page has got black text over a black and white background so you can only read every other word... as if anything on there were worth reading anyway. :P

Re:Maybe it's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904755)

Schizophrenics always feel confused. That's why they behave so erratically.

Re:Maybe it's because (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904767)

I have this line in my user CSS:

A[HREF*="myspace.com"]:after { content: " [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING]"!important ; color: red }
It puts a nice read [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING] after any link to MySpace. I stopped accidentally clicking on them after I added that.

Re:Maybe it's because (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23905019)

But every day I get another invite from a hot girl who really wants to be my friend. She even gives me a link to her website where she keeps all the pictures myspace won't let her post. I never got this kind of attention before myspace

Boohoo (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904135)

Oh the joys of investing in a fad. I find it hard to feel for Murdoch. The years when such ventures were risk-free no-brainers are ca. 10 years past (if they ever existed).

Aw, what a shame (1, Troll)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904137)

I nearly feel bad for the guy; except that I don't, and wish nothing but further business failures for him and his various companies.

Eat hot shit, Rupert!

Re:Aw, what a shame (0, Offtopic)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904831)

One of the things you'll find about slashdot is a lot of people here will mod you as "troll" [wikipedia.org] if you badmouth one of their high priests. Never dis a banker when you may be talking to someone who worships money as so many slashdotters do, and especially don't badmouth someone who can buy bankers.

I don't have a very high opinion of Murdoch either. He comes here to America from Australia, buys up a lot of our shit (Fox, Myspace, etc) and then the foreigner who claims not to be an alien rams his neocon politics down our throats. Chances are whoever modded you "troll" is a slashdot neocon. There are guys who will mod you down for saying Bush is a bad President.

If I metamod your comment, the guy(s) who modded it "troll" will get smited. It is not offtopic and it should not provoke an emotional reaction in anyone who isn't monetarily invested in Murdoch's schemes. Note to moderators: your mod had best fit the wikipedia definition of whatever you mod as or your mod will be modded down. For instance, there's little way for a first post to be redundant.

Think before you mod or you may not get more points to mod with. When in doubt, save your mod points.

"No Karma Bonus" box checked.

A shill for the State gets his just deserts (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904149)

Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be.

MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

Murdoch overpaid for something that can probably never make a reasonable profit. It's like trying to commercialize peer groups. It doesn't work. Murdoch screwed up time and time again by not providing for correct advertising focus to the customers of MySpace. The advertising doesn't work. It's a broken system. Facebook is no better, in my opinion, but at least they're providing services that a slightly upper crust clientele wants.

The future of the web is not about large-scale sites dominating over tiny ones. It's the whole long tail situation: the big sites are mere portals to other sites, and the sites that fail to do this properly will be hurt significantly by trying to be the big boy on campus. Those who made money by being shills for the State will also suffer (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc). The long tail is getting longer, and thicker, and stronger, and it will become superior in financial clout than the few large sites that used to be powerful. Even slashdot (probably NOT a shill for the State) is likely finding pain as smaller sites/blogs/forums are grabbing a larger chunk of the pie.

So what should Murdoch do? Break down MySpace. Don't be one big site on one big platform: expand to being tiny widgets and plugins that are part of the long tail of tiny blogs and forums and personal webpages. Let people host their MySpace widget on their platform, and send traffic back to MySpace as MySpace sends traffic to billions of tiny sites. MySpace can brand the widget with their own advertising or marketing clout because it'll be a part of millions or billions of sites.

But Murdoch doesn't understand this. Murdoch doesn't want to. He thought "Ohh, billions of teenagers and young adults, we'll sell iPod thingies to them and make trillions! And then we'll push the Iraq War on them subconsciously."

You failed Rupert. Go away.

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (4, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904271)

MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.
They can take our lives, but they'll never take our MySpace?

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904345)

It's like trying to commercialize peer groups.

It IS trying to commercialize peer groups.

Fixed that for you.

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (2, Interesting)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904509)

As much as I hate Murdoch and all he stands for. Here's a list of everything thats wrong with your post:

He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be.
You have proof of this? Somebody actually paid him for his investments, or he just got stinking rich off of them?

MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.
You really think people stopped using MySpace because of their corporate ties. I'm sure some did, but most probably just hated their clunky Web 1.0 design. An easier explanation is something else moved into the market and took over. Somehow, someway, Facebook has a better product. MySpace needs to reinvent itself to compete. Freedom has nothing to do with it. The average person simply does not invest that much time into examining which company owns which - otherwise those counter-culture morons hanging out in front of Hot Topic in the mall would realize they are wearing cloths that are produced by Gap or American Eagle (not sure which??).

Murdoch overpaid for something that can probably never make a reasonable profit.
... Ummm... advertising? ever heard of it?

The future of the web is not about large-scale sites dominating over tiny ones. It's the whole long tail situation: the big sites are mere portals to other sites, and the sites that fail to do this properly will be hurt significantly by trying to be the big boy on campus. Those who made money by being shills for the State will also suffer (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc).
Here... you're totally wrong. The future of the web is services. Who can provide the better services. Simple as that. And the "big boys" aren't being hurt as much as you might think for the little guys in this area... nope... not at all... not even close. Fox News provides a service that, albeit, is slanted. But it provides it's slanted views to a group willing to hear a slanted version of the truth. Every news source does that... digg included.

You failed Rupert. Go away.
Failed in the long term yes... but still probably turned one hell of a profit. I'm sure he'll be mourning as he counts his billions. Please, think before you post. I'm not sure who modded this up... but this simply isn't true. Maybe it should be, but it's not.

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (5, Funny)

Bedemus (63252) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904619)

MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

You may want to find a new line of reasoning. I think that argument is more likely to turn someone against freedom than it is to win someone over to MySpace.

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904629)

Murdoch was also a bit confused as to the revenue stream. See, he had just received a bulletin saying that MySpace was going to begin charging...

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (4, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904759)

MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom.
Indeed. It's about giving the technologically inept individual the power to suck total ass on the intarweb, because Geocities never made it easy enough back in the day.

Re:A shill for the State gets his just deserts (3, Insightful)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904927)

"Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be."

I can't stand Murdoch one bit, but that is just complete & utter rubbish. Who are these "Powers that Be"? the Bavarian Illuminati?

In reality, he's "paid well" by all the suckers like you & me who pay for over-priced Fox, Foxtel, Sky and the plethora of other cable/satellite TV companies he part-owns.

Obligatory Ballmer Ref. (-1, Troll)

Red Jesus (962106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904161)

I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Facebook!

Next Up: Investors furious over Pets.com stock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904177)

If this guy can't recognize a silly trend without business fundamentals, he deserves to be parted with his money. Just like the thugs on Wall street have been telling small time investors for years. It's nobody's fault but your own if you can't evaluate the business potential of a company when you invest. Perhaps Mr Murdoch should stick to index funds....

aargh (5, Informative)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904185)

No more pirate/vampire/werewolf invitations, please...

Facebook started off a great site, fast, clean design, it's now incredibly slow and hard todo anything, whereas myspace actually is improving.
Still waiting for a mybook, or facespace to integrate the messaging.

Re:aargh (2, Informative)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904289)

Why not just block the apps you don't like? Or block all third party apps altogether? I haven't seen a pirate/vampire/werewolf invitation since 2007. Come, join us in 2008, it's nice here.

Re:aargh (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904323)

You can block all invitations from certain people now, but you still can't block their adding of apps from showing up in your news feed unless you block all the apps.

Re:aargh (1)

Davey McDave (926282) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904639)

To be honest, I do think that Facebook should ban games that rely solely upon inviting other people (chain letters in everything but name).

BUT. Everyone I see complain about applications probably doesn't realise that facebook added a "block this application" link months ago. You can also minimise the app boxes on each page and that application will be always minimised on EVERY page.

I'd blame human stupidity over the application designers/facebook staff. Some people (mysteriously) seem to like these zombie applications. Most of my friends don't, or maybe that app blocking thing finally kicked in. All I know is that it doesn't bother me anymore.

Flash, meet Mr. Pan (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904187)

Even if it is a REALLY big flash in a REALLY big pan, how can they not realize it is just that.

There will always be a need for MySpace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904189)

it is the mark of the moron

much like having an @aol.com address

it helps me to decide within 2-3 milliseconds whether a person is a tool or not

to this I say: long live MySpace, long may you live!

Makes Murdoch Mad? (4, Funny)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904221)

I thought he was already mad. Hmmm.

Duh (5, Funny)

Ilan Volow (539597) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904225)

How could a UI disaster that informs a user who has problems logging in that "you must be logged in to do that?" and that lacks any kind of official published API possibly win?

Re:Duh (2, Informative)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904419)

How could a UI disaster that informs a user who has problems logging in that "you must be logged in to do that?" and that lacks any kind of official published API possibly win?

It relies on the "0MG P0ni3s!!!" principle. It's complicated, but it basically states: Provide one location with availability for publication of emo-centric blogging with equal possibility of generic, monosyllabic, glitter-font responses.

hey murdoch (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904309)

friendster

xanga

geocities

tripod

etc.

and don't worry about facebook, in a few short years, it too will be a hasbeen, replaced by whatever site is the new trend

social networking sites are nothing but trends. they have the limelight for a few years, then they fade. think of them as the bell bottoms and ankle warmers and member's only jackets of the web. here today, master of everything, gone tomorrow, utterly forgotten

so how do you make money off of them?

you make money off of social networking sites by becoming extremely powerful, then seducing some tragically unhip media conglomerate to buy you for gabazillions, then you sleep all day and party all night

so congratulations murdoch, you have a place in "new media" after all: the patsy left holding the bag

Re:hey murdoch (2, Funny)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904413)

We should start a social networking site that is tragically and intentionally UNhip, outdated, and technologically in the dark ages, and is rude, and full of google ads. It'd become an overnight antihero sensation.

minus the google ads (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904439)

its called craigslist

Re:hey murdoch (4, Insightful)

Bedouin X (254404) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904519)

You speak truth, but the hard reality here is the 500 million plus that Murdoch paid for MySpace was an absolute steal.

If Facebook is valued at $15 billion, it's very safe to assume that MySpace is worth at least half that. Odds are it's closer to twice that but, even with this hyper-unrealistically conservative measure, it's clear that Murdoch made a good investment.

it was worth the money (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904701)

the error is in how murdoch quantified what he was purchasing, the perception of what he was actually getting for his money: the error is in thinking you are buying a permanent piece of major real estate on the web. no, what you are buying is a major marketing and branding tool for a few years... which is indeed still worth $500 million

for his $500 million, he gets a few years of ad revenue, some "showing soon" movie marketing hype, some cross-branding possibilities, steering a few kids towards a fox reality show, etc. but after a few years run, the site is worth bupkus

as for facebook's $15 billion, all i can do is laugh. $15 billion?! insane. because facebook too will be worth the gum on my sneaker in a few years. facebook is worth what myspace is worth: $500 million

zuckerman or zuckerberg or whatever the kids name: he should have sold facebook out. hes going to be like that friendster guy is today in a few years: the friendster guy daily kicks himself in the ass for not selling out when he could have. zuckerdude is thinking he has the next google on his hands. no, he has the next xanga. sell out kid, asap

thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out, upping the ante and going for the diamond ring

Re:hey murdoch (1)

wiremind (183772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904925)

I don't think Facebook will be leaving any time soon.

The amount of data stored per user in facebook is very high.

Its the best contact management tool i've ever used, and that core functionality isn't going anywhere.

Sure many of those Apps are annoying but they are also optional. and some Apps are downright helpful. I personally use the iRead App to record my book collection and what i'm reading. IRL (in real life), I would have never told my cousin that "oh yeah, by the way, i havent phone you in 2 years, but guess what, iRead just told me were reading the same books, what did you think of XY? ". That app just helped me connect with someone in a meaningful way, and thats Cool! Another App i use is the Movie one, same thing, i record which movies i watch and give them ratings. Then 2 weekends ago I wanted to do a Star Wars Marathon and watch all 6 movies. Because most of my friends on facebook also use the movie app, I knew easily who would be interested, and invited some people I otherwise wouldn't have thought of.

So viewing Facebook as a basic contact management system, These extenal Apps can really add value. And with the investment of time i've put into building that social network, I cant see myself switching to a different contact management tool for a very very long time.

Kyle

Who would've thought (4, Insightful)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904313)

That investing extremely large sums of money based on the momentary whims of teenagers and early twenty-somethings wasn't such a great idea? The winds of the internet can shift in an instant, and it seems like Murdoch hasn't caught on to that yet. Of course, it won't be long before The Next Big Thing comes along, and Facebook will be in the same spot that MySpace is right now.

Alliterative Articles Are Awesome (3, Funny)

michaelpb (935524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904325)

All alliterations are actually anterior assonance, after all. The article wasn't nearly as entertaining as the title...

Bad Valuations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904387)

Websites without paying customers aren't worth that much (base your valuation on current advertising revenue only gentlemen) especially those that are free and cater to a new generation of teenagers (renews every 4 years or so). Seriously he should be mad that he overpaid.

Re:Bad Valuations (1)

SpockLogic (1256972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904839)

Websites without paying customers aren't worth that much (base your valuation on current advertising revenue only gentlemen) especially those that are free and cater to a new generation .....

Are you talking about /.?

MySpace Can't Handle Demand (2, Insightful)

BinBoy (164798) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904407)

MySpace is already slow with the existing demand. If they manage to gain more visitors, the situation will only get worse. Add some servers and cleanup the horrible HTML.

Make Rupert more mad (1, Troll)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904415)

Facebook and Myspace are both cr@p (as all the other imitator sites are also cr@p). Did my statement of fact make you more happy Rupert, or are you just sore on loosing all that money?

Idea (5, Funny)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904443)

So I was sitting in my cube on this fine Monday afternoon, eating my lunch, when I had a brilliant idea.

FlashFaceSpace. It will combine the wonderful-nonannoying-awesomeness that is Flash, the unobtrusiveness of Facebook applications, and the customizability of MySpace to create the ultimate social networking site of DEATH. This will blow MySpace, Facebook and every other social networking site out of the water.

Re:Idea (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904539)

It will combine the wonderful-nonannoying-awesomeness that is Flash, the unobtrusiveness of Facebook applications, and the customizability of MySpace to create the ultimate social networking site of DEATH. This will blow MySpace, Facebook and every other social networking site out of the water.
Flash? Bah, try Silverlight - now there's a technology that's going places!

MyBookLight even sounds better too!

Re:Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904705)

Hi, I'm a venture capitalist and I like your idea! I'm gonna sink fifty bilion trillion gazillion dollarz into it!!!! I'm confident that your business acumen will reap enormous profits instantly. It can't fail! :D :D :D

Sincerely,
Vulture T. Capital

cold fusion FTL (3, Interesting)

mabu (178417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904449)

The fact that the site was developed using Cold Fusion should have signaled the first sign of its impending demise.

Should have known better (3, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904451)

Murdoc's corporation, owns many dozens of news papers, magazines, TV and radio stations.

He just bought the Dow Jones Corporation, including the Wall Street Journal, for fsck's sake!

You would think that he has enough experience and market knowledge to know to to spend half a billion dollars on something targeted at 15 year olds who wear pants made for the opposite gender.

Kids change fads more often than they change their underwear some times. Eventually, some of those grow up, go to college, and want something a little more serious and less... dumb.

Then they abandon myspace.

Oh well. Better luck next time, dude!

Re:Should have known better (2, Funny)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904853)

Kids change fads more often than they change their underwear some times.

Maybe, but not changing their underwear is itself just a fad, soon all the hip kids will be taking multiple pairs of underwear to school and changing between each class. You mark my words.

Re:Should have known better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904923)

Murdoch has never had good luck with internet projects. Remember Delphi? No, you probably don't. I do: I applied for a job that never materialized.

Re:Should have known better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23905011)

Another excellent exemplar of how right-wing blowhards love the free market until it bites them on the ass.

Ads, ads, ads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904513)

...that's all that these suckers are interested in.

Webcams came and went away. Napster came and went away. Blogging came and will fade into dust when even the last blogger on earth realizes that there are better things to do in life than hobby-journalism. (Like, being paid as a jornalist, for example) And myspace and facebook will go away, too.

  ("Go away" in the sense of being taken over by morons and becoming uninteresting to anyone with a real life.)

white and nerdy (1)

micromuncher (171881) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904515)

Hey, FaceBook isn't mentioned in this song, so it can't be cool enough to survive :-)

(And as a FaceBook user ... as soon as something as slick comes along that actively
manages the flood of craptastic add-ins ... I'll jump ship.)

just maybe... (5, Insightful)

moracity (925736) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904517)

If myspace pages didn't suck so bad, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't even consider Facebook and MySpace rivals. Facebook is so far beyond MySpace, it isn't even worth discussing.

Facebook's days are numbered, I'm sure. Something will come along to replace it in the next couple of years...unless it is able to evolve.

So it has the bigger dick. So what? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904549)

So myspace fell behind facebook (or the other way 'round, don't bother answering, it doesn't matter).

Ok. So what? What did Murdoch hope to get out of his purchase? An insight in peer group development and what people interact with what people? Paying half a billion for that is kinda stupid, you can get that cheaper by pondering for an hour about it. Quite nice hour rates, even my lawyer makes less...

Let's be reasonable here, community sites like that don't give you ANYTHING. They don't give you a marketing tool, telling you what people are interested in what, because people lie due to knowing that they'll else be bombarded with ads. They don't give you an advertising platform, because people are getting fed up with pointless ads and use ad blockers and ignore lists liberally. They don't give you a tool to inform people for the same reason, people liken "information" with advertising more and more (possibly due to some informational broadcasts taking the form of ads more and more, thanks to Mr. Murdoch himself).

So what gets Rup ruffled the wrong way? It's not like that toy (and it ain't much more than that) had any value in the first place. Well, we know now that it has a price, and we know now that the old saying "not everything that has a value has a price" can be reversed, but aside of that, nothing was gained.

Re:So it has the bigger dick. So what? (2, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904735)

They don't give you an advertising platform, because people are getting fed up with pointless ads and use ad blockers and ignore lists liberally

I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people who actually care enough and know enough to do this.

Ugh! (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904643)

MySpace is hideous so that's not surprising. Facebook, OTOH, while better looking simply isn't intuitive. For all of the talk about "applications" I largely don't use them because they're not obvious.

Agreeing with Ballmer?!? (1)

doulos05 (945501) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904645)

FTFA

With $40 billion burning a hole in its pocket following the collapse of the Yahoo deal, Microsoft has been consistently linked with a takeover of Facebook, although CEO Steve Ballmer last week talked down the possibility of a deal. "People don't understand what they're talking about," he told The Financial Times. "At the end of the day, this is about the ad platform. This is not about just any one of the applications."
I have to admit, Ballmer actually has this one right. Facebook really is just an ad platform. The programs exist to sell ads. But why are they using that as an excuse not to buy it, isn't that what Microsoft wants? A platform from which to advertise other microsoft products? Perhaps one of the chairs ricocheted?

Get some competent web design, Rupert... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904745)

Invest a little in someone to make MySpace something people want to visit, instead of something that people go out of their way to avoid. Well, I go out of my way to avoid it, when I've got a choice fo going to a MySpace page or trying another Google search I'll generally do another search.

I mean, not only is it slow to fetch all the images and painful to navigate but it's about the only thing that's uglier than Apple's "Platinum File Sharing".

Predators (2, Insightful)

_14k4 (5085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904773)

Of course your site is going to eventually fail when it is constantly linked to online predators, and the "security" is built on top of Real Ultimate Freedom(tm). Compared to Facebook where you have to "link" to each other in greater detail, before actually being able to do much. I would assume that predators don't have that sort of patience. I don't really know, I don't have a myspace page. Just facebook.

Target Demographics (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904827)

So Rupert is mad because the primary users of his product (12-18 year olds) turns out to be a demographic that has no money? Sounds like somebody skipped some sort of business analysis and jumped on the proverbial band wagon a tad too quickly.

Am I the only one who saw this one coming? (2, Insightful)

ibanezist00 (1306467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904879)

What with cApSsPeAk, 15 year olds writing journal entries about something no one actually cares about, letting anyone who isn't a webdev edit their page so that I have to deal with stupid cursors and blinking glittery images that say "princess", display names that are quotes from some shitty song with terrible lyrics, some post-grunge emo band starting up when I visit someone's page and having to attack the pause button before I have to be subjected to it... ...and pretty much everyone I know having the same experience, is it any wonder that MySpace is dying and losing an upper-hand in the ad-selling business?

Social networking sites have a life cycle (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904895)

As I point out occasionally, social networking sites have a life cycle, like good nightclubs and restaurants. They start up, if they're lucky, the cool people go there. They grow, they get too many losers, the cool people leave, and they decline.

Once upon a time AOL was cool. That was a long time ago. Geocities and EZboard were cool for a while. Remember them? Nerve and Tribe were once cool; now they're dying. Now it's Myspace's turn. Today, to a teenager, Myspace is what your little brother uses. Social networking sites have a shelf life of maybe five years.

This is reflected in traffic stats, which is where I got a clear picture of this effect. The Alexa traffic statistics were useful for seeing when a site peaked. Unfortunately, the Alexa people recently "widgetized" their site, and they broke the "Max" button on their traffic graphs, so you can't currently see historical data for past years. Maybe they'll fix it.

The Next Cool Thing will probably be phone-based.

Should have spent more money on tech? (4, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904917)

I don't know how bad Facebook is, but think of every story, every complaint you've ever had about Myspace, technology-wise.

It's worse than that.

Simple example: Trying to pull tour dates from Myspace. Too much to expect that they'd have a working iCal feed, or that they'd put hCal on the page. Fine, we'll scrape the HTML, no problem...

No, the real WTF moment was the month (I think, might've been more) during which none of the calendars worked.

People joke about Twitter being unable to scale, but really, you'd think with the amount of money Myspace pulls in, they'd be able to hire one good tech person? I'm guessing that's a major reason people are going to Facebook.

Huh!? He Made his money back! (2, Insightful)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904949)

A lot of the comments I'm seeing assume that Murdoch somehow lost money on the deal. In reality after he bought MySpace: "On August 8, 2006, search engine Google signed a $900 million deal to provide a Google search facility and advertising on MySpace."

And I'm sure that's not the only way MySpace has made Murdoch even richer.

Murdoch doesn't understand what he's talking about (1)

edwebdev (1304531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904969)

In the article, he describes Facebook as less of a community than MySpace and more of a directory. Any other feelings about Facebook and MySpace aside, I think he's pretty wrong about that. Facebook's architecture allows different members of the site to be linked based on a large variety of dimensions spanning the users provided interests, network memberships, and other criteria. In my experience, MySpace's "social networking" capabilities are much less robust.

The fallacy of unique visitors (2, Interesting)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#23905013)

That's always been used as a significant metric, and I've never understood why. This article is a perfect example. 120million unique visitors in a month. If we assume that's a peak... and that it's been trending generally upward but not dramatically, it's not too hard to extrapolate at least 2 billion "unique hits" in 2 years. The problem with that is that there are significantly less than 2 billion people people online [internetworldstats.com] . So what do those numbers really mean?

That's because MySpace is a corporate sellout.. (2, Insightful)

peas_n_carrots (1025360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23905025)

.. and a sellout to News Corp, no less. That alone probably drove away much of their clientele, a base which seems to be young-progressive as opposed to Murdoch's right-leaning fascist inclinations.

Personally, I hope the exceedingly greedy and decrepit Murdoch never learns the ropes of new media and pisses all his money away trying to get a piece of that pie. Too much to wish for though.

MySpace is horribly buggy. FaceBook Isn't (5, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23905039)

I have both a MySpace page [myspace.com] and a FaceBook page [facebook.com] to promote my music. It just takes a glance to distinguish the clean, tasteful design of FaceBook from the garish, ad-ridden MySpace.

I've had no end of trouble with MySpace. I'm not able to prevent my music from playing when you load my page, even though that's how I set it in my profile. I've always allowed downloads of my MP3s, but at some point they stopped being downloadable. I had to delete them all and re-upload them to get the downloads back.

I have actually found MySpace pages that had been customized in such a way as to make FireFox crash just by loading the page!

My only complaint about FaceBook is that it doesn't allow for downloading MP3s - but that's a lack of a desired feature, and not an actual bug.

Most young people these days are trying out both. I don't think it takes much time for them all to figure out which one is better.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>