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!

Facebook To Put Off IPO Until Late 2012

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the status-delayed dept.

Businesses 129

jfruhlinger writes "Facebook's whispered about IPO is one of the most anticipated in the industry — but it looks like we'll have to anticipate it for a bit longer. The Financial Times, quoting anonymous sources, says that it won't happen until late next year. Those sources say the purpose is to keep Facebook employees focused on product development, but it seems more likely that Facebook's bankers aren't happy with the company's numbers (or the economy's prospects)."

cancel ×

129 comments

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

Apocalypse how? (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | about 3 years ago | (#37407654)

The Mayans predicted it, Facebook will bring about the end of the world in 2012!

Re:Apocalypse how? (2, Interesting)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37407670)

To be honest, Facebook has done a lot of good. It's incredibly easy to keep up with people living on the other side of the world, even with those you don't really know that well but still have gone out to bar sometimes etc. It has also brought businesses, restaurants and everything to one single page with one unified interface, so you don't have to hunt them from Google or other search engines. The real names and connections between people make it a lot easier for you to discover new things and people too. I can see the popularity and its reason, even though slashdot users seem to hate Facebook. I guess I'm just a little bit more social geek.

Re:Apocalypse how? (-1, Troll)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37407764)

Mod parent up! Best troll I've read for a long time, even better than Dr Bob.

Re:Apocalypse how? (4, Interesting)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 3 years ago | (#37407816)

To be honest it's a pain. It's blocked from just about every work place and even after you've clocked off and you want to go drinking all the info is locked away. The phone app is so invasive I've un-installed it and make do with awful webpages they serve up on mobile.

I book people for events and people book me for events and to be honest, it's one more point of contact that I could do without. It's best use is for one to many dissemination of information. For many to many it is dire; but as so many people are on, it I'm stuck with it. It has a long way to go and I'm looking forward to the next company that steps over it with something better. Getting everyone to move will make that hard.

Re:Apocalypse how? (2)

Threni (635302) | about 3 years ago | (#37407898)

I think it's because it's insecure by design. The internet, websites and emails is what's brought people together. Anyone with Google can google the company name, and go to the site. Having to create a Facebook account before you can use it is a problem if you value security. The real names thing (to the extent that it's policed, which is not very much, just like the `no children` rule) is doesn't help.

Yes, there are more people into social stuff than there are geeks. If the internet were only used by geeks, there wouldn't be a Facebook; there were BBSs, email etc for that sort of thing.

Re:Apocalypse how? (4, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37407980)

If anything, Facebook has made it much harder for me to stay in touch with friends and relatives.
Not being a social type, and having a taboo-strength aversion to any conversation in which I only know one of the parties, I'm just not Facebook compatible.
So I rely on e-mail for communication. But with the advent of Facebook, people no longer check their e-mails, nor bother to reply. So I lose touch with people.

I'm sure Facebook is great for those who are social. But it's crippling for those of us who can't cope with social situations.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1, Offtopic)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37407996)

So maybe it's time to improve your social skills? It's not that hard you know, and once you start doing it you start acting more social naturally. I've been there and even felt awkward in social situations, and now I think it was pretty stupid of me. There's no reason to be non-social, as world is quite stupid without other people.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1, Offtopic)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37408056)

So maybe it's time to improve your social skills? It's not that hard you know

I know it is that hard. Oh, I try. And invariably end up far more depressed that I was when I started, when it reinforces the feeling of not being part of it.

Re:Apocalypse how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409402)

So maybe it's time to improve your social skills? It's not that hard you know

I know it is that hard. Oh, I try. And invariably end up far more depressed that I was when I started, when it reinforces the feeling of not being part of it.

I pretty much did what ge7 did. I used to be completely anti-social and incapable. I just worked on it (via learned behavior and conversion of interpretations) and now I'm to the point where I'm very social, very talkative, VERY friendly, and can read peoples' emotions and body language like a book. In that sense, I agree with ge7.

There's a catch - I disagree with ge7's comment because I also *HATE* the new ability I have. It's not the proper wording to use but I'll do it anyway:

Every time I dedicate my attention to something that didn't come naturally to me, I do it VERY well (better than most, actually), but a "piece of me dies" every time I do it. It is very frustrating at the end of the day, and I feel like I am cheating myself out of self-esteem. It's a sort of "faking" a happy and social life. Unfortunately, the "fake" that people see is something they perceive as very real and very nice. Hence, I use "a bit of me dies." Wrong term and it sounds overt, but it's the best term to describe the feeling behind it.

I have a new gift, but it cost a lot. Other people find it more acceptable, so it gets rid of social noise. That's the upside. Yeah. Let's go with that :)

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37409704)

Brain the size of a planet, and I can't even open a facebook account!

Re:Apocalypse how? (1, Offtopic)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37408086)

I've been there and even felt awkward in social situations

I missed this part. No, then you haven't been there. Awkwardness isn't the problem - it's just a symptom, and "even" doesn't belong in front of "awkward".
Try curling up into a ball, or leaving with tears on your face over being excluded by people who don't even realize it, and you are closer. But not there yet.

Try talking to fifty people and only get one response because someone felt obliged. Sure, that is awkward, but that's not the problem. Seeing those other 49 joke and laugh as a reminder of what you won't experience is what hurts.

Fear of rejection is hard but not hopeless (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 years ago | (#37408644)

Try curling up into a ball, or leaving with tears on your face over being excluded by people who don't even realize it, and you are closer.

Everyone feels this way sometimes. Seriously, everyone. We're social animals and we generally care about being accepted by others even when it should not matter. Any guy who has ever tried to ask a girl out of a date knows that it can be terrifying, even if you are normally loaded with self confidence. And if you get turned down it can really really hard. People fear public speaking basically out of fear of rejection. Being rejected or turn down for a job, a friendship, or even just a friendly conversation is depressing and hurts in a very real way. I myself am naturally a relatively shy person who has to work hard to maintain social connections. It's not easy.

The good news is that there are over 6 BILLION people in this world. I guarantee you that there are people out there who will be interested in you for who you are. You don't have to like everyone and you don't have to be liked by everyone. Most people in this world are just like you, trying to find a few people who they fit in with and can be accepted by.

If that isn't enough there are professional counselors out there who can help. There are anxiety and other disorders that are medical and can be treated. Social behavior can be coached if you find it difficult. None of this is anything to feel ashamed about.

Try talking to fifty people and only get one response because someone felt obliged. Sure, that is awkward, but that's not the problem. Seeing those other 49 joke and laugh as a reminder of what you won't experience is what hurts.

If that happens then it is time to seek acceptance with a different group. Speaking from personal experience I only really have maybe 3-4 people outside of my family I would regard as friends and actually worry about what they think. Don't worry about what 50 people say. (easier said than done, I know) Find a few people you really care about and who care about you and worry about what they say. Spend your time with them. If you find a social situation awkward, ask those few close people for help and listen to what they say.

If you worry about the 50 saying rude things then you are giving them power over you. I know from personal experience it isn't easy but ultimately you have to decide that their opinion doesn't matter to you and move on. If you did something which was embarrassing or socially awkward, acknowledge it, own it and move on. We all do it and we all get laughed at when we do it. No one likes to be embarrassed or worse, excluded. Sometimes the problem comes when we take ourselves too seriously. I heard Conan O'Brien once say that "comedy is throwing out your dignity and hoping that you get it back". Don't hold on so tightly to your dignity and you might find that some of those people are laughing with you instead of at you.

Good luck

Re:Fear of rejection is hard but not hopeless (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | about 3 years ago | (#37409592)

I have lived 19 years of my life so far, and I am not the person that is quoted.
I also have bad social skills.
But even I have never gotten to the level he talks about. Not even once.
For him the problem is not that he gets into such a bad situation, but rather that every single of those situations he gets into ends like that.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37409764)

You'll be OK when you grow a bit older, trust me, it's just a question of learning to fake confidence.

And just remember that the people who are the most out-going and sociable are the ones who feel empty inside when they're alone.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37411110)

You'll be OK when you grow a bit older, trust me,

According to www.deathclock.com, I have less than 2 1/2 years left in which to grow older, but miracles do happen, they say.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#37410466)

Send a facebook message. It's as private as anything else.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37411174)

Send a facebook message. It's as private as anything else.

Sounds like a capital idea. How do I do that without having a Facebook acount and having them friend me, again? And how do I get the replies?

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 3 years ago | (#37408370)

It has also brought businesses, restaurants and everything to one single page with one unified interface, so you don't have to hunt them from Google or other search engines.

So you're saying it's a good thing that FB is effectively turning the web into a walled garden that is run by Mark Zuckerburg? Yeah, great, totally.

And that's the problem... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | about 3 years ago | (#37408720)

It has also brought businesses, restaurants and everything to one single page with one unified interface, so you don't have to hunt them from Google or other search engines.

Facebook thinks it is the Internet, and many of it's users agree. Now, you just have to hunt them down through Facebook search. I'm not sure that's any improvement. Rather, I see that is a major step backwards. What good is a unified interface to developers and innovation? Do we just hand over the keys to Facebook? Want your restaurant to have a reservation system? Better ask Facebook to make one for you.

Re:Apocalypse how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409306)

Get out of the house more and experience some real interaction with real people that you can see. It is much better. I travel a lot for work and I do not go out of my way to meet random people but it happens, on the plane, after work, a bar, etc.. I'd rather interact with random people with random interests in a social setting instead of hanging out talking to people who all share the same interests as me. Specially when most of the conversation is not very insightful because the conversion always starts with you both rehashing your past experiences with that common interest. "I got into it about 8 years ago when I worked at blah blah.." and then that person says the same thing in return. BORING! I mean its cool to find some people that you share interests with online but all Facebook does it let people know what each other did or thought the last time that person updated Facebook.

Re:Apocalypse how? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 3 years ago | (#37410416)

Sure. I like Facebook, if not their constant schemes to expose people's information. Is it worth billions though? Put it this way, if Facebook were to start charging $100 for an account would you pay?

Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37407702)

For all the privacy they've squashed and all the censorship they've jack booted.

Some of the issues are collected here http://stallman.org/facebook.html [stallman.org]

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (2)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37407712)

Social networks, for lonely people, may only show them how lonely they are.

How is this Facebook's fault? Should everyone else stop using social networks and stop being social just because some people are unable to establish relationships with other people?

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37408032)

The problem is that you stop being social with those who need it the most - those you won't find on Facebook.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (1)

DiabolicallyRandom (2449482) | about 3 years ago | (#37408380)

To imply that you would somehow still socialize with those people outside Facebook, when you wont on Facebook, is a bit disingenuous. I used to be horribly socially inept, a veritable outcast, as it were. Then I met my wife. And I came to a realization. If people don't have time to include me, they can go fuck themselves. Now I have two very close friends. Everyone on Facebook? People that i barely care about, but have to "keep in touch with" for various reasons (family, friends of family, etc) - using Facebook to stay in touch with them makes it a hell of a lot easier to avoid talking to them on the phone, since I could really give a fuck less. Now I can just ignore the phone when it rings and say "oh, sorry". But seriously. Who cares about everyone else being assholes. Fuck Em. Go out and enjoy life, find one or two really good people to share experiences with, and it will go a long way into making life be fucking awesome. Social exclusiveness will be no more, since you wont give a fuck what people think anymore.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37408682)

To imply that you would somehow still socialize with those people outside Facebook, when you wont on Facebook, is a bit disingenuous.

No, it isn't; I'm talking from experience. I have tried Facebook, but it became too emotionally painful to use -- a constant reminder that I'm the loner who don't attract friends, and don't understand how people have fun there, only observe that they do and that I'm not a part of that. You never feel as lonely as in a crowd.

Yet I communicate with a couple of people through e-mail -- people I also communicated with before Facebook.
But there are fewer now, because some people no longer read their e-mail; they have switched from one-to-one communications to social networking sites.

Social does not require Facebook (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 years ago | (#37408432)

The problem is that you stop being social with those who need it the most - those you won't find on Facebook.

Someone who has that much difficulty being social won't be found outside of Facebook either. If someone is interested in being social they will find a way to do it - with or without Facebook. Believe it or not it's 100% possible to have a social life without using Facebook, Twitter, text messaging, email, instant messaging or even... gasp, the internet.

Re:Social does not require Facebook (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37408712)

Someone who has that much difficulty being social won't be found outside of Facebook either.

I'm not asking to be "found" - that's a social networking concept alien to me. I'm asking not to be forgot.

Believe it or not it's 100% possible to have a social life without using Facebook, Twitter,

Absolutely. But it requires that those you communicate with don't abandon one-on-one communication in favour of social networking.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (1)

locofungus (179280) | about 3 years ago | (#37409958)

The problem is that you stop being social with those who need it the most - those you won't find on Facebook.

While I'm sure there are lonely people who are not on Facebook, them going on facebook is not going to stop them being lonely.

I have very recently joined facebook but that's not to make new friends but because my friends were organizing things on facebook and I couldn't access the details.

I've just gone and looked at who my "friends" are. All of them are either relatives (about 20%) or people I've had recent (less than 6 months ago) face to face encounters with (with one exception). It's also almost exactly 50/50 male/female.

There are a couple of my "friends" who have moved abroad very recently. It will be interesting to see whether facebook means that I do keep in touch with them - something that historically I've been extremely bad about or whether in twelve months time, assuming I'm still using facebook, I'll be deleting them from my friends list.

Tim.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 3 years ago | (#37408328)

And besides, living in your parent's basement and contributing to free and open software all day is *much* more fulfulling and rewarding.

Stallman himself isn't exactly known for being adept at social interactions.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409922)

you are really dumb...

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (2)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | about 3 years ago | (#37407866)

Your comment deserves a +1 Stallman.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (3, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 3 years ago | (#37408012)

I love this one (emphasis mine)

Facebook permanently records everything you do, even what you look at, even items that are "deleted". And presumably gives them to the CIA.

And presumably to Al-Qaeda and North Korea as well. Get a grip, Richard.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408080)

If Facebook records it, they - like all big corporations - WILL give it to whichever agency asks. Either because of some "national security" law or simply for some goodwill with government agencies in general.

You can ridicule it all you want. That doesn't change the fact that if they want to, agencies like the CIA have unrestricted access to all of Facebook's data.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408098)

You assume they're not just picking it off the wires in real-time anyway. The good stuff at least.

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37409840)

If you're the sort of person the CIA are interested in, you shouldn't really be posting stuff on Facebook anyway (except as part of your cover story).

Re:Can't wait to make these criminals billionaires (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37410534)

If you're a person, then CIA is interested in you. The problem is they are interested in EVERYBODY and record EVERYTHING FOREVER. This is called national security and operates on an unlimited budget. Check out 'carnivore' [wikipedia.org] or 'echelon' [wikipedia.org] . The storage space is cheap and the optic fiber is fast. Ask how happy the people are who gave their information to the government and who were detained in internment camps, Japanese American people during WWII and people with heritage from the Middle East after 9/11. Who knows what arbitrary detail in your past places you in a concentration camp tomorrow?

Too bad (1)

arcite (661011) | about 3 years ago | (#37407726)

Facebook missed the boat. The bubble is burst.

Re:Too bad (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37407778)

Doesn't matter. They've benefitted from it already, and without that pesky regulation stuff. The sold a big chunk of (massively overvalued) shares to Goldman Sachs, who then sold shares in a fund backed by Facebook shares. Because GS was the only shareholder, they didn't pass the threshold required to go public (and so have to publish accounts). Facebook got a big chunk of capital, GS got a new to you play their hype-and-dump games with, a load of rich people got to buy in early and enjoy the bubble, and a load of other people will get left holding the hot potato when they eventually revalue the fund to be based on something sane.

Re:Too bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408072)

Nah, without the stock getting public it is all peanuts. Sure, they probably got few hundred millions already, but it is not the real jackpot. I lived through several IPOs; if you get in early enough, the before/after ratio starts at 1:20, and can get much better than that. For the large shareholders it is even better.

Who didn't expect this? (2)

rahulreddy1986007 (1081373) | about 3 years ago | (#37407756)

This doesn't come as a surprise to me at all. Who in their right minds would go forward with an IPO when the investors are trying to pull out their money from the market. Seems to me, Facebook has a lot of time before it can go ahead with this, if they want it to be a success!

Re:Who didn't expect this? (1)

underqualified (1318035) | about 3 years ago | (#37407938)

Not a surprise at all. The title *is* the article. The words in the body are nothing new.

You're only hot once (2)

oliverk (82803) | about 3 years ago | (#37407782)

I've got an old theory that everyone's hot at some point in their lives...which is why it's difficult to see a cute little kid knowing full well they've got a devastating blow coming to them as their nose grows too long, their face takes on odd proportions or their complexion goes to pot, oftentimes before they've even hit dating years.

Now, there's Facebook. Did they get hot once already and the decline is starting to set in? When you think about the "social infrastructure," are they the first to come to mind? Does Google actually have the opportunity to change the game on them in a way that they'll never be able to compete with? And does the radical demise of every hot property from CompuServe to Yahoo! tell us everything we need to know about how deep our roots are in the social world?

Not saying it's true, just saying it's worth pondering...

Re:You're only hot once (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37407848)

I've got an old theory that everyone's hot at some point in their lives...which is why it's difficult to see a cute little kid knowing full well they've got a devastating blow coming to them as their nose grows too long, their face takes on odd proportions or their complexion goes to pot, oftentimes before they've even hit dating years.

If you think kids are cute and "hot", but think their faces take on odd proportions as they grow older, you need so go see a therapist today, Mr Closet-Paedophile.

Re:You're only hot once (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37407944)

When did we get to the point that you cannot even point out that a young child may look beautiful? They quite often do you know, it's in their (evolutionary) best interest to look cute, adorable, and non-threatening; it makes adults (especially their parents) want to protect them.

Sometimes a good-looking child ends up a pretty adolescent, and some of them have a perfect figure and hot body for most of their adult lives. Others end up with horrible acne at 14, or figure World of Warcraft is a good way to spend 12 hours a day, and end up looking repugnant.

Look, I know we are in an age were paedophiles are the new communists, but the truth of the matter is that a 14-year old girl can be sexually attractive, and a 9-year old boy can have a perfect skin, perfect features, and look adorable in every way (most don't though). Pointing this out does not automatically mean you would rape or otherwise harm them given the chance.

Re:You're only hot once (1)

amaupin (721551) | about 3 years ago | (#37409404)

Yes, a 14 year old girl could be sexually attractive. However the great-grandparent seemed to be saying a cute little boy was hot (sexually attractive). I don't think that's what Oliver meant, but it's what he seemed to say.

Re:You're only hot once (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37409906)

When did we get to the point that you cannot even point out that a young child may look beautiful?

There are many suitable words to describe a beautiful child, "hot" is not one of them.

To be fair, the OP is jprobably ust barely literate and can only write in moronic cliches, rather than actually being a paedophile.

Re:You're only hot once (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37410222)

You all are very confused. The word "hot" has many definitions. You're only "hot" once doesn't mean sexually. We're talking about Facebook. Do you think when Facebook was "hot" people wanted to have sex with it? I regularly hear people talk about a "hot" property. Personally, I'm amazed some of you can get along at all in the world being so insanely literal you see pedophiles falling from trees.

Ah, the grown ups have arrived. (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 3 years ago | (#37407814)

I've been in a tech company that was poised for an IPO just before the sub-prime bubble burst and rained on everyone's parade. An external firm was brought in to handle it, took one look at the books, and told us that we were, to paraphrase only very slightly, having a laugh.

A business model based on growing on private investment rather than revenue, vastly over-inflated self estimate of worth, and years of accounting sleights of hand were easily rooted out.

Sight unseen, I'd suspect - OK, to be honest, hope - that Facebook is in a similar situation. They may have to go through a few firms before they find out willing to take them to market with a multi billion dollar cap and a straight face.

Re:Ah, the grown ups have arrived. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408402)

I hope Facebook dies of cancer, alone, in a dirty public nursing home.

Re:Ah, the grown ups have arrived. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37409948)

I've been in a tech company that was poised for an IPO just before the sub-prime bubble burst and rained on everyone's parade. An external firm was brought in to handle it, took one look at the books, and told us that we were, to paraphrase only very slightly, having a laugh.

So who had told you that you should go for an IPO in the first place? Did you not have professional advice before you were "poised"? Weren't your books ever audited?

lonesome al gore's 1 day weather channel on now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37407820)

http://climaterealityproject.org/

not getting much press attention. no surprise? can't be real? it's always like this on thoroughly dampened (spirits etc...) thursday?

Makes sense (3, Insightful)

Phurge (1112105) | about 3 years ago | (#37407878)

I hate the Facebook, try as I might I've had zero success in migrating my family and friends to superior services like twitter & google+. (I'm gen x btw). Reason being is my non computer literate family and friends can't cope with the cognitive dissonance of learning yet another www site on the internet. If they do manage to do so, then there's no-one there, except boring self-promoters (hello twitter!). So Facebook will be around for a long time to come and people like me who know there's better alternatives will still be forced to use it.

Getting back on topic, postponing the IPO makes a tonne of sense. The markets are in turmoil with Greece and Italy about to default. For an IPO of the size of Facebook, any sensible banker would wait and see.

Plus the USA has its election next year, so inevitably the pork barrel will come out. No doubt that will add a couple of digits to the user/revenue/ebitda mulitple that Facebook will be valued at.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37407902)

Facebook is the VHS of the social network wars. And if they don't pick their act up g+ will end up being betamax

Re:Makes sense (1)

optimism (2183618) | about 3 years ago | (#37408406)

Facebook is the VHS of the social network wars. And if they don't pick their act up g+ will end up being the DVD

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37409044)

Facebook is the VHS of the social network wars. And if they don't pick their act up g+ will end up being the laserdisk

Fixed that for ya.

Re:Makes sense (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#37409972)

I think the "they" refers to g+ not Facebook in the GP post.

Re:Makes sense (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37409528)

Facebook is the VHS of the social network wars. And if they don't pick their act up g+ will end up being betamax

Reverse what you said and I'm 100% with ya ;)

Re:Makes sense (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37408024)

I've had zero success in migrating my family and friends to superior services like twitter & google+.

Twitter is a microblogging platform and not much more, as I understand it. Google+ is in limited field trial ("We've temporarily exceeded our capacity."), just like Facebook was in the college-only era.

Re:Makes sense (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37408150)

Cognitive disequilibrium is a better term for that phenomena.

Re:Makes sense (2)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#37408278)

>>cognitive dissonance of learning yet another www site

That's not cognitive dissonance.

You, on the other hand - talking about why Facebook is great even though you hate it - is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Re:Makes sense (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 years ago | (#37408298)

that's because G+ with it's circles and "following" mentality is only for bloggers to promote themselves

Facebook is not a necessity (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 years ago | (#37408354)

So Facebook will be around for a long time to come and people like me who know there's better alternatives will still be forced to use it.

Huh? Unless you are in the unlikely circumstance where your employer requires you to use Facebook as part of your job, no one is forced to use Facebook. I don't have an account and live quite happily without Facebook. In fact I cannot see any real fit for it in my life - it just has nothing to offer me that I need or want. I'm not denying that Facebook can be useful/fun for many people but it is highly overrated in terms of it being necessary.

Re:Makes sense (2)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 3 years ago | (#37408444)

I hate the Facebook, try as I might I've had zero success in migrating my family and friends to superior services like twitter & google+.

Maybe they don't want to use Google+ because they don't consider a service superior if it doesn't have their friends on it?

Re:Makes sense (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 years ago | (#37410920)

I hate the Facebook, try as I might I've had zero success in migrating my family and friends to superior services like twitter & google+.

Maybe they don't want to use Google+ because they don't consider a service superior if it doesn't have their friends on it?

Or people like me who know that the real purpose of G+ is to get even more people's information and to tie all your browsing habits to your google account.

Facebook has a lot of information, but it suffers because all that information has to be entered in voluntarily. Hence "privacy" controls - the number of people who would voluntarily input their information increases exponentially given privacy theatre (it's all that it is - that information exists to be sold).

Google, despite "do no evil", has amassed a huge quantity of information, and is so pervasive that the web would literally break if you were to block every Google-owned domain and service (we're not just talking about search, or services Google provides (ilke GMail or Docs or Apps), but all the other services as well - CDN, bad URLs, etc). And nevermind that, but Google knows all from the ads as well, the apps you use on your smartphone (Android apps that are ad-supported, iOS apps that use AdMob), etc.

Heck, it would be trivial (though creepy) if G+ simply added all the people you know automatically to circles from all the information they have on you. Probably even figuring out which circle they should go to automatically.

Re:Makes sense (2)

js_sebastian (946118) | about 3 years ago | (#37409152)

I hate the Facebook,

It's not the facebook, you know?

Drop the "The." Just "Facebook." It's cleaner

.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37411218)

This is based on risk, Facebook must continue to grow during that time period and hope world wide economic don't take a turn for worse. Even so if Greece and Italy default, so will the other nations on the edge. Europe economy falls into a depression, followed by the fragile US economy. Asia and the middle-east get caught holding debt. The world will spends the next decade sorting it all out.

Taking this route, too many things have to go their way that they have no control over. I'm very confident they will regret this if they even do IPO.

Bank says: (1)

drolli (522659) | about 3 years ago | (#37407946)

first demonstrate you can deal with google+ then we give you money.

Re:Bank says: (1)

wannabgeek (323414) | about 3 years ago | (#37408484)

Serious question - not a troll. Do you really think Google+ is succeeding? Here is my personal experience FWIW. I have created Google+ account in the first couple of days, sent out invites to my friends and family (at least the ones I really wanted to keep in touch) and everyone was very eager. There used to be so much activity that I thought it's the end of my Facebook usage. Couple of weeks later, it all started dwindling. Now the only updates I see on G+ are the ones I make and the ones posted by my friends who are in Google. Very few outside Google seem to be checking it, let alone post anything. It's probably just inertia and nothing on the quality of the product, but G+, at least in my social circles, does not seem to have attained the escape velocity and unless something changes, is bound to fail.

Re:Bank says: (1)

drolli (522659) | about 3 years ago | (#37409336)

Depends. The combination of influencing android devices quite directly, combining with gmail id (many people dont like to sign on multiple times), map services, services like latitute, google places with cheking and money to acquire a lot of companies who have local competence and bussinesses already listed there makes them a serious competitor.

My interpretation of the beta for google+ is that they need to figure out

a) how to monetize on it

b) how not to step on the feet of their own customers

c) prevent any really big data protection problem (which would give the a bad name)

d) How to get the people to sign up for it.

Re:Bank says: (1)

psnINsplPL (1664145) | about 3 years ago | (#37409478)

Serious question - not a troll. Do you really think Google+ is succeeding?

That's probably why they're delaying the IPO of Facebook. They're probably talking with Google to make sure the buyout is safe and on the up'n'up. :)

Re:Bank says: (2)

coolmadsi (823103) | about 3 years ago | (#37409552)

I post a fair bit to Google+, although I usualy duplicate the post to Facebook and twitter. I much prefer Google+ to Facebook, so keep posting there enough though I have less contacts there. My reason being that if anyone else does migrate over to Google+ from Facebook or elsewhere, they will see some activity instead of nothing happening and stop logging on.

The interaction with people is about the same I think. For example, I posted a photo to both Google+ and Facebook, and it got a similar level of interaction in both places, even though the number of contacts I have on Facebook is far far greater than Google+.

I remember reading on slashdot a few weeks ago that the easiest way to get people to move from Facebook to Google+ would be to post a link to your Google+ profile saying "I will only be adding new baby photos to this account", to get family to move to it so they can continue looking at photos of their grandchild/niece/nephew/etc.

Re:Bank says: (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 3 years ago | (#37410380)

That is the same experience I had. There was a faint interest in G+ at first, but once everyone realized that there were not very many people using it and that everyone was "still on Facebook", the impetus to use G+ dwindled.

Like so much out of Google, they blew it again. "Limited betas" and "exclusivity" works great when you have something that nobody else does. Gmail was a great example of that. Free webmail was a fairly new phenomena and webmail with a real amount of storage was unheard of. In that case, the limited release and needing an invite from your friends worked wonders. People wanted it.

Nobody really wants G+. Everyone who wants a social network with their friends and family already has one. It is called Facebook.

Google should have kept the lid on their social network, refined it internally, then launched it to EVERYONE when it was ready. Instead they offered up some half-assed launch, a few people checked it out, and now nobody cares.

What's an IPO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37407976)

What does IPO stand for?

Re:What's an IPO (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 3 years ago | (#37408136)

Internet Patent Overlord.

A tough one (3, Interesting)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 3 years ago | (#37408004)

This is going to be a tough one. Google has already changed the game and Facebook is squirming. I see mainstream news stories about Facebook adding new features that copy Google+. Bankers have advisers who see this kind of thing happening. Frankly, any brokerages/banks willing to float the IPO are looking for an IMMEDIATE payoff (i.e. stripping new "investors" of their buy-in of common stock). Read the "Wall Street Jungle", its an old book the explains this stuff in a simple manner. It is not magic. Plus, the MySpace fiasco is still fresh in everyone's mind. It was SOOO hot!

Google+ doesn't want users (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37408042)

I see mainstream news stories about Facebook adding new features that copy Google+.

Such as the "feature" of not being able to create an account at all because all servers are full?

Baseless speculation (1)

Zouden (232738) | about 3 years ago | (#37408038)

but it seems more likely that Facebook's bankers aren't happy with the company's numbers

Nowhere in the Financial Times article or the pointless IT World blog post is there anything to support this claim. The FT says the opposite: it's desirable to delay the IPO as much as possible, especially during times of market volatility, and furthermore revenues have most likely doubled since last year.

Re:Baseless speculation (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 3 years ago | (#37408062)

market volatility

Have you ever seen a price history of a dotcom after its IPO? It makes April 2000 look like a time of stability and prosperity.

Thanks for the laugh, boys (1)

paiute (550198) | about 3 years ago | (#37408060)

"...the purpose is to keep Facebook employees focused on product development..." This amused me more than any lolcat I am likely to see today.

Why do you go IPO? (1)

initialE (758110) | about 3 years ago | (#37408176)

The straightforward answer is that a company feels they need a quick cash infusion to take them to the next level. But that must mean they already have a plan for spending that money. Facing competition from Google, knowing that they may have already jumped the shark, knowing that money will become tight real soon, the only reason to put it off till next year is because the owners are planning to cash out, and cash out big.

Re:Why do you go IPO? (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | about 3 years ago | (#37408490)

You know I was wondering the same.

They're throwing numbers in the millions around, so they must have a healthy cash flow. What are they planning that needs that massive cash influx?
Their expenses are what; data centres, payroll, legal wranglings and some R&D? Their assets are; brand, marketing/demographic data, and some basic IP?

Or is it the VC that want to cash out and get their return of investment?

Re:Why do you go IPO? (1)

wannabgeek (323414) | about 3 years ago | (#37408548)

Umm...many companies (especially in the software/web domain) go IPO because the employees want their big pay-day and early investors want to cash out. It does not necessarily mean they NEED the cash infusion. So they may or may not have a plan for spending the IPO proceeds. Their "plan" could be as generic as "building a war chest for future acquisitions".

sh17 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408196)

Why? (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | about 3 years ago | (#37408400)

Why would anyone buy stock in something that is about to get decimated by Google+?

Goldman? (2)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | about 3 years ago | (#37408568)

Goldman Sachs bought all those private shares some time ago, looking to make a bunch of money off the IPO. Now that they've had a look at the books, maybe they fear that Facebook isn't worth nearly as much as they hoped.

Facebook: IPO while you still have time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408590)

Your user base is shrinking, competitors are popping up, and the limited attention span of the somnambulant masses has just about expired.

Goldman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408768)

It has more to do what the markets are looking like than rather they had an over valuation. In the past few weeks goldman has been wrong on their gold options and their EUR/USD spreads. They wouldn't want to risk another multi billion dollar screw up.

...and who do you think will buy it? (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 3 years ago | (#37408770)

....I'll give a penny to anyone who answers correctly.

This is snark, but actually I do have a LARGE entity in mind that I would bet big bucks will be the first to purchase.

In fact, I'd bet they're talking to them already and working on the best way to ensure success and looking "clean" on it.

Re:...and who do you think will buy it? (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | about 3 years ago | (#37409658)

Oracle ?

Don't say Microsoft.

US Gov?

What will they do with the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37408866)

The purpose of an IPO is at least partly raise a lot of money for the company. So what can FaceBook do with an influx of cash that will generate big profits? I'm sure they could spend a lot on upgrading servers, rewrite parts of the code and add new features, but what is really going to bring in the income? They need to bring in a ton of new users, or find an excuse to greatly increase ad costs, or do something else entirely to bring in money.

Business Model (1)

cybaz (538103) | about 3 years ago | (#37408918)

Facebook is valued based on the fact that it has tons of personal information that it can make available to advertisers. Goldman Sachs and others have already bought into it based on this. However, in practice once they do that there will be a huge outcry, people will leave, those that stay will get the government involved, and it will be a huge mess. They can't just tell Goldman Sachs, sorry, we're only worth half of what you paid into, they need to figure out an alternative business model which will get them valued equal to the "sell peoples personal data" business model.

Terrible summary (1)

Dgtl_+_Phoenix (1256140) | about 3 years ago | (#37409158)

The summary absolutely mischaracterizes the blogs it references. The blog relating to Bacebook's bankers doesn't saw anything more than that they can't rule out unsound financials. However, the author himself goes on to say that he doubts this, instead suspecting that the planned delay most likely relates to market conditions. He's likely correct. While the likes of Goldman Sachs may have over paid, Facebook appears to be a solvent venture. Groupon would love to say as much... But don't worry, if they just get big enough they'll start raking in the cash. Never mind the fact that as revenues grow at Groupon, so do loses.

if they can keep their employees happy ... (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 3 years ago | (#37409374)

Some could jump ship to more lucrative startups.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37410288)

So Facebook, Zynga, and Groupon are both possibly pushing back their IPOs. Bubble bursting anyone?

By the end of 2012, FB will be (1)

melted (227442) | about 3 years ago | (#37410400)

By the end of 2012, FB will be "old news". Not quite MySpace 2.0, but the trend will begin to point there. They should IPO now. Trouble is, the moment they IPO (well, 6 months after, due to the quiet period), a lot of employees who have a significant amount of options will exercise them and move on. I have a couple of friends who work there, and while they like working there overall, that's exactly what they intend to do. :-)

Still banned in the US? (1)

dave562 (969951) | about 3 years ago | (#37410474)

I remember reading a couple of stories about the first shares of stock that were floated by Goldman Sachs. The SEC prevented Goldman from selling the shares in the United States, so GS had to go to Asia to get rid of them. It was speculated that the shares were so over valued that the SEC was protecting American investors. Is that still the case? Can the shares even be offered in the US?

Facebook has stopped growing (2)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#37411288)

Facebook's user count has stopped growing in the US and UK. [guardian.co.uk] That's a killer sign for an IPO.

Once growth has stopped, the company's value has to be based strictly on revenue. The value of the stock is the present value of future dividends. It's not clear how profitable Facebook really is. Since they're private, audited numbers are not available.

Once the number of users has peaked, all the ways to increase revenue annoy users. Facebook can run more ads. (See Myspace for where that leads.) They can add more services (Yahoo and Google went overboard in that direction. It didn't help.) They can force developers to pay them. (That works in the short term, until the major developers figure out another way to get paid.)

Social networks have a life cycle, like nightclubs. They start small, get the cool people, then allow massive numbers of people in. The jerk level becomes excessive, the cool people leave, and the social network winds down. This happened to AOL, Geocities, Orkut, Tribe, Xanga, Bebo, Yahoo 360, Nerve, and Myspace. Facebook looks to be next.

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>