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!

Dark Days Ahead For Facebook and Google?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the feel-free-to-send-me-your-discarded-shares dept.

Businesses 215

An anonymous reader writes "Dallas Mavericks owner and media entrepreneur Mark Cuban thinks he knows the reason for Facebook's disappointing IPO; smart money has realized that 'mobile is going to crush Facebook', as the world's population increasingly accesses the Internet mostly through smartphones and tablets. Cuban notes that the limited screen real estate hampers the branding and ad placement that Google and Facebook are accustomed to when serving to desktop browsers, while phone plans typically have strict data limits, so subscribers won't necessarily take kindly to YouTube or other video ads. Forbes' Eric Jackson likewise sees a generational shift to mobile that will produce a new set of winners at the expense of Facebook and Google."

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

Obvious (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115061)

Flame baitin article is flame baitin.

Mobile will destroy Google? (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115079)

It's too bad they don't make phone software or something that could help them pick up at least a little market share in that area, amirite?

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115159)

It's too bad they don't make phone software or something that could help them pick up at least a little market share in that area, amirite?

Exactly. Google is doing way more to get into the mobile business than mobile companies are doing to enter the search business.

Search? What search? How, exactly, does one do search in a mobile app, other than googling it?

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115567)

It's too bad they don't make phone software or something that could help them pick up at least a little market share in that area, amirite?

Exactly. Google is doing way more to get into the mobile business than mobile companies are doing to enter the search business.

Search? What search? How, exactly, does one do search in a mobile app, other than googling it?

Fuck I don't know. One thing we can all agree on: Facebook can't possibly die fast enough. DIE FACEBOOK DIE. May all its investors and employees weep and march penniless to the nearest welfare line. May Zuckerberg be followed around with a live TV camera everywhere he goes everything he does and i do mean everything. "Oooh he's taking a shit on Channel 3!" He does like his privacy you know. May his wife divorce him for a morbidly obese redneck truck driver after first cheating on him with his best friend.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (5, Funny)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115171)

You just don't get it. Mobile is going to hire Steve Ballmer to crush them. With a chair.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115203)

That would be a valid response if Google was making any money off of Android. As is usually the case, Slashdotters fetishize market share above all else as if it's the one sign of victory in business rather than profit and influence.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115293)

The whole point of Android is to be a mobile search platform. You're not such an insufferably stupid moron that you think Google isn't making momy.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115323)

I don't know, maybe they are making your momy.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115521)

I really like your typo there. I nearly spit cola out my nose :-)

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40116011)

The real irony is that I'm using an iPhone to defend Android.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115699)

What does it matter what the intent of Android was? Google itself says [androidcommunity.com] they're not making "momy" from Android. But go ahead and throw angry insults at me if you think that will generate the missing revenue.

Do you think Google shifted its focus to social networking on a whim? Web advertising is down, and it's making even less money on mobile platforms. That's why Facebook had to revise its revenue forecast days before its IPO and why they're under investigation for apparently informing select investors.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (1, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115757)

Except that Google isn't profiting from Android as a mobile search platform. They have acknowledged this in their quarterly reports.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (3, Insightful)

tweakerbee (2426882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115901)

Except that Google isn't profiting from Android *directly* as a mobile search platform. They have acknowledged this in their quarterly reports. FTFY

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (0)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115803)

Sorry dude, but you are the moron... BTW don't let facts stand in your way, ok?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earns-more-iphone-android [guardian.co.uk]

"Android generated less than $550m in revenues for Google between 2008 and the end of 2011"

"That compares to Google's $38bn total revenues in 2011, almost entirely derived from advertising on PCs, of which there are 1.25bn installed worldwide, according to Microsoft. That suggests an average revenue for Google of about $30 per PC per year, though not all will be capable of accessing the internet or will use Google, so the actual figure will be higher."

I am sure Google was sandbagging the Android numbers so that the Oracle case would go in their favor. BUT say for the moment they earned 5 billion over the entire time, which is a fact of 10, it is still a pittance to what they earn on the desktop.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (2)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115371)

Google does not make money licensing Android. But they make a shitload of cash serving adds, gathering info on android users, locking you into their ecosystem, etc.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115547)

"Locking" is a pretty strong term considering you can extract your data, and move it to another ecosystem if you choose.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (5, Insightful)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115683)

If "locking" means "providing me with so much good stuff--including the ability to easily leave the second I choose to--that I don't want to leave, even though I can," then hell, sign me up!

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115817)

BEEEP wrong answer try again...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earns-more-iphone-android [guardian.co.uk]

They made 500 million over the course of 4 years, whereas Google earning 38 billion last year from computers. Even if they were sandbagging it for the court case it is small change...

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115921)

Slashdotters fetishize market share above all else as if it's the one sign of victory in business rather than profit and influence.

Right. Everybody knows the true sign of victory in business is share price and how many workers they can shed.

Unfortunate for Facebook, that they can't announce the layoff of 10,000 workers, because that would surely send the stock into the stratosphere.

OK, OK, I'm just joking. The real sign of victory in business is successfully suing your competitors for IP infringement.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115251)

Also, some of the most popular mobile services. Pretty much the #1 most useful thing about a smartphone is being able to access Google Maps while you're out.

Profitability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115339)

What does that have to do with profitability? Android doesn't make money for Google, and the point about data limits in the summary still applies. "A little market share" isn't going to help much without profits.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115355)

Yeah, really. Its kind of hard to fault Google for lack of vision here. They quite literally created THE standard smartphone platform that knocked several entrenched players out of the market. - All with the anticipation that mobile will be a big part of their future.

Microsoft's efforts are older, but were surpassed within months of android's launch. Win phone is currently a joke. (Just a well financed, advertised, and shilled joke - Hi shills! In b4 your copy/pasted crap!)
Nokia is dying.
Blackberry is circling the drain.
Palm is long gone
Everyone else has switched to android.
(Or is apple - Android did not take much market share from Apple. It took it from everyone else)

Some people get mad at Google for trying lots of things that don't always work. Whatever your criticisms, they do produce more winners than nearly any other company in the industry.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (2, Insightful)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115489)

Giving it away for free, but making up for it in volume. That's not a very good business plan.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115613)

Giving it away for free, but making up for it in volume. That's not a very good business plan.

Yeah those idiots who run multibillion dollar multinational corporations. They obviously don't know a good business plan when they see one. They don't know ANYTHING about business! They should have consulted you first.

Re:Mobile will destroy Google? (2)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115621)

That sounds a lot like Google's business plan for their search engine. Give it away for free, and make ads dirt cheap. But get enough ads and all those tiny sums turn into huge piles of cash. Why wouldn't that work with Android?

But (2)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115085)

...at the same time mobiles are able to establish higher rate connections, and it would probably make sense for Google to purchase a mobile phone operator or assist an one into providing much larger data limits than currently exists. Then the limits discussed above disappear and Google/Facebook resume letting the good times roll .....

Re:But (4, Interesting)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115809)

I think that was their plan, but they can't now because they own Motorola. One of the US FCC's big firewalls (the only one, it seems, that they care to enforce anymore) is that a carrier cannot manufacture their own phones, essentially to prevent the kind of massive fail we saw in the 70s with AT&T.

As far as I can tell, Google's plan was to buy up massive amounts of darknet (already done), set themselves up as an ISP (pilot project in Topeka), and gobble up enough spectrum to make themselves a big player in mobile internet (T-mobile would make a good buy, and DT wants to sell). Unfortunately for us, the patent wars forced Google to look for a defensive portfolio, and Motorola leveraged their portfolio into forcing Google to buy them to get their patents (or else they'd all go to Microsoft/Apple; Motorola essentially held themselves hostage), so that dream is dead for now.

It may be possible for Google to spin the remains of Motorola back off as a separate manufacturer; they certainly don't seem very enamoured with the company, seeing as they're keeping the two businesses entirely separate in terms of management and workers, and aren't really even collaborating with them when making the new version of Android. Maybe they'll just shuck off the phone maker part of Motorola Mobility and continue on their grand plan; they've certainly got the free cash to pull something crazy like that.

bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115095)

bankruptcy ahead of facebook, all the people i know stopped using it (and over 200 people i got to stop using facebook)

You're showing them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115301)

bankruptcy ahead of facebook, all the people i know stopped using it (and over 200 people i got to stop using facebook)

So that's 300? out of 900 Million Users [wikipedia.org] which makes it 899,999,700 more to go and you'll show them!

And I find this interesting that that article:

As of May 2012, Facebook has over 900 million active users, more than half of them using mobile devices.

Kinda flies in the face of what Cuban said, doesn't it.

Re:You're showing them! (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115507)

Facebook has over 900 million active users, more than half of them using mobile devices.

Kinda flies in the face of what Cuban said, doesn't it.

I disagree; it wouldn't matter if that number was 99% that are using it on mobile. The question is, is Facebook effectively monetizing those people, or are they just using the free service. If the latter, Facebook's goose may be cooked. Free is fun, but all those servers sure ain't free to Facebook.

Re:You're showing them! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115601)

Heck, mobile users are monetized beyond what most people even think.

1: Look at all the apps sucking GPS info.

2: Carrier IQ, enough said.

3: Install FirewallIP on a jailbroken iPhone. Virtually almost every single app connects to a metric (versus an imperial) fuckton of ad, metric, behavior targeting, scoring, and other tracking sites.

4: You know the Enhanced caller ID info that is supposedly better than GPS? Nothing keeps that from being sold with YOUR name on it to whomever wants.

So, mobile is far worse than desktop in being tracked 24/7/365. At least you can anonymize a desktop. A mobile device will still whisper its GPS coords and has to use towers which uniquely identify it.

people are over thinking this (4, Insightful)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115105)

Maybe the smart money recognized hype when they saw it and is starting to think that hype isn't a safe investment?

Re:people are over thinking this (4, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115415)

Or maybe the facebook guys did a really good job of getting the maximum value for their previous investors.

If you guess the value of a company as 110 billion dollars, and it turns out it's actually 95 that's a lot closer to reality than if you guess 20 and find out it's really 160. If you look at google, that opened at around 90 immediately jumped to 110 ish, then dropped to 100 not too long after, the next major local minimum is 243, which comes 3 years later, and it's now around 600. Feel free to pick your own preference for what counts as the 'correct' value of google stock, but pretty clearly the answer has been a hell of a lot more than 100 dollars a share for the last 7 years.

The point of the IPO was in part to get cash so they can build and capitalize on new ideas. I have no idea what those ideas are, but then I wouldn't have anticipated amazon's cloud service (and I have a close person friend who works on it, and was working on developing it). Facebook bought themselves time, with cash, both to get regulators off their back (fairly, you can't have that many shareholders and not be public for long) and to invest in and build new revenue streams. Again, no idea what those are. Mark Cuban clearly doesn't see them either, and he's presumably more credible on the topic than I am, but that doesn't mean Zuck is without a plan to make more money.

Of course you're right, the whole thing could be hype or stupidity. Zuckerberg might be a naive idealist who's happy to never pay a cent to shareholders and run Facebook like a charity with enough revenue to keep everyone paid and then nothing else. That would be a disaster for facebook stock in the not too distant future, but he does have a chance to make it into a proper greedy profit building enterprise, rather than just an invasive leech on your privacy.

Re:people are over thinking this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115687)

fairly, you can't have that many shareholders and not be public for long

Why not? What's the rationale behind this? Serious question; I really don't know.

To put it another way. If you want to privately hold a company and it grows into a large company, good for you! That doesn't compel me to do anything. Why would I then write a law to compel you to go public? What's my interest in doing that?

Re:people are over thinking this (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115837)

Why would I then write a law to compel you to go public? What's my interest in doing that?

In a word, control. The government likes to have control over things. Why do they have the SEC, after all, instead of just letting privately-owned companies do what they want? Why is "insider trading" illegal? Why shouldn't people be able to get inside information and then make well-timed stock trades? Because the government, for better or worse, wants to be able to control things and regulated things. Not that regulation is always a bad thing, but they have to be consistent to some extent. You can't tell large companies with tons of shareholders that they need to follow rules that you set down for them, and then say that some other company with tons of shareholders (but not traded on a public stock exchange, but instead traded through other means) is somehow exempt from these same rules.

I call shenanigans (-1, Troll)

FoolishBluntman (880780) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115115)

Mark Cuban can suck my dick.

Re:I call shenanigans (1)

pro151 (2021702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115175)

I will see your shenanigans and raise you 1 Bullshit. There's always some "expert" out there that can predict the future. Expert, Ex-spurt, Ex - someone who used to be something significant but is no longer. Spurt - drip under pressure.

Re:I call shenanigans (2)

FoolishBluntman (880780) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115249)

I will see your shenanigans and raise you 1 Bullshit. There's always some "expert" out there that can predict the future. Expert, Ex-spurt, Ex - someone who used to be something significant but is no longer. Spurt - drip under pressure.

I call your bullshit, but I don't have enough chips, I guess I'm all in.

I probably should have said something more insightful like, hmm, I didn't know facebook and google didn't work on mobile devices,
oh, wait, they do
In fact, I probably use google maps more on my iphone than on my desktop.

Re:I call shenanigans (3, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115549)

I probably should have said something more insightful like, hmm, I didn't know facebook and google didn't work on mobile devices, oh, wait, they do In fact, I probably use google maps more on my iphone than on my desktop.

How much do you pay for using Google maps? Do you follow ads a lot? If the answer is that you don't pay anything to Google for your mobile maps, and you don't follow ads, then how is Google making money off you? The same observation applies to Facebook.

Re:I call shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115571)

I call your bullshit, but I don't have enough chips, I guess I'm all in.

bullshit... chips... nice.

Facebook is just the new MySpace (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115145)

Rememeber MySpace? No? Vaguely, maybe? How about AOL? AOL isn't entirely in the same category but it's close. Facebook will go the way of the dinosaur just like AOL, and MySpace, and LiveJournal, and whatever comes after Facebook will sooner than you think Not Be The New Hotness anymore. What we're seeing with Facebook today is just the opening overture of it's swan-song, and I for one will not miss it.

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115287)

Odd how you focus on Facebook as the come-and-go trend but say nothing about Google, as if the article didn't even mention them. Google hasn't innovated anything in over ten years and has adopted Microsoft-like tactics to get people to use their products (e.g., "Upgrade to Chrome!" on the search page).

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115337)

Mod as troll. Google created everything I use on my phone within the last 10 years, half of it within the last 3.

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115513)

What about the driverless car?! :P

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115727)

Huh?

My phone uses Android, a Google invention.
My Web browser is Chrome, a Google invention.
My E-mail is gmail, using two-factor authentication, which few if any providers use.
My navigation is done by Google Maps and Navigator.
When I needed to look for a building, it was Street View that helped me find it.
My friends have private circles on G+ that are worth reading.
I'm using Google Drive for encrypted backups of documents so I know they have a good chance of being around.

With this in mind, I sort of guess Google hasn't done much in ten years... but few companies have done much more.

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (0)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115753)

I'm not "failing to mention" Google, I'm ignoring it because it's an irrelevant failure to begin with.

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115319)

I dunno. I know it's not popular around here to like anything that smells like "social," but I find I like using Facebook far more than I ever liked using MySpace. Even if you assume they're both serving the same market with all of the exact same features (which isn't really true), one piece of software is not identical to everything else in its category. It may be that Facebook succeeds simply because it's better.

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115585)

no it won't. It's integrated far more then AOL ever was. It also adapts, something AOL, my space, etc couldn't do.

Greater chance of surviving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115879)

Maybe it's because Google, despite what many critics are saying, have diversified away fromt their core offering of search. Wrong. Google isn't a search company. It's an advertising and data mining company. Facebook, by far, is just a social networking company. By the same metric, Mircrosoft isn't going to go away, even if it's desktop and server business fail massively. They've already diversified. Facebook is just a one-trick pony, to use the words of a certain CEO.

Re:Facebook is just the new MySpace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115887)

Rememeber MySpace? No? Vaguely, maybe? How about AOL? AOL isn't entirely in the same category but it's close. Facebook will go the way of the dinosaur just like AOL, and MySpace, and LiveJournal, and whatever comes after Facebook will sooner than you think Not Be The New Hotness anymore. What we're seeing with Facebook today is just the opening overture of it's swan-song, and I for one will not miss it.

I understand your reasoning as far as things going the way of dinosaurs. But none of the others had a user base nearing a billion. It might take an alternative quite awhile to bring FB or G+ to the dark ages.

Yet another non-story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115155)

Seriously, this is considered worthy as a featured article on /.?

Pro-Google astroturfing on Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115245)

What a surprise, multiple anonymous posters in this story once again trying to dismiss a piece of negative news involving Google. Infiltrated by Google employees and well-wishers, Slashdot consistently offers justifications and dismissals for every bad behavior, terrible decision, or piece of bad Google news.

Google is a multibillion dollar advertising megacorporation that was caught by the German government sniffing people's wifi data (they "accidentally" did it for three years before admitting it only when authorities threatened an investigation), forced people to use real names on Google+ and admitted it was an identity service and not a social network, stuffed Google+ results into the search engine without any competing social networks even though they have those networks indexed by the search engine (hello, Microsoft tactics), said that the only people who care about privacy "have something to hide," hacked into Mocality to call its customers, removed H.264 support in Chrome out of "openness" only to turn around and ship the closed-source Flash plugin, withheld Android source from the public but shared it with privileged hardware partners so they could have a leg up, abused their Android compatibility program to make things difficult for smartphone makers who chose Bing over Google, and on and on and on.

With all this crap they pull that would get them completely trashed if they were Microsoft or any other company, there's one reason and one reason only that they have been propped up as the good guy on Slashdot all these years--Linux. They use Linux. Slashdot is a Linux advocacy site, and so because Google uses Linux, they are good guys and get a pass for everything. That's all it takes to get Slashdot to love you. Just use Linux.

When Microsoft used their Windows monopoly revenues to fund development of Internet Explorer and release it for free to try to dominate the web market, everyone here cried "antitrust!" But when Google uses its web search monopoly revenues to fund development of Android and release it for free to try to dominate smartphones, everyone defends it. For anyone who was on Slashdot during those times, to see Google doing all the very same things Microsoft did but get a completely different reaction is surreal.

Slashdot is a bubble. You only get pro-Google, pro-Linux news. Major news occurring elsewhere is often days late, if it gets reported at all. This will get modded down because trolls have taken over the moderation system and openly subvert it. That's fine. It just proves that Slashdot reacts negatively to anything outside the partyline.

Maybe, but more importantly... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115169)

Facebook and Google should go the way of the dodo because in the long run users would benefit from controlling the means of communication. We should make the services on the internet free and open and decentralized and distributed or if there's a technical reason for central servage, the users should run those central servers.

Go Freedom! Go commons! Go opennes! Go democracy!

Peace.

Re:Maybe, but more importantly... (2)

apsyrtes (557388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115359)

I agree! Just let me know when you're done building all this stuff so I can start using it for free.

FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115177)

One is the designer and developer of the most popular smartphone + tablet OS. The other has a garish social networking website.

Now which one do you think is better positioned to take advantage of mobile Internet users?

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115313)

The one making tangible products. FB is another dotbomb in the making, it's akin to the idiots that valued Yahoo's IPO above P&G's stock.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115343)

One is the designer and developer of the most popular smartphone + tablet OS. The other has a garish social networking website.

Now which one do you think is better positioned to take advantage of mobile Internet users?

All I know is that I have an Android phone, and I feel taken advantage of.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115735)

Then you're an idiot, CamperDipshit. Never heard of a return policy?

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115839)

Only because nobody makes a good multi-core phone with a decent physical keyboard. Somebody, please, put a fast dual-core processor and 1 GB of RAM into a phone with this kind of keyboard [t-mobile.com] please!

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115353)

most popular?
does ios outstrip android in users?
I always thought apple was just at the high end of the market.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (-1, Redundant)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115391)

One is the designer and developer of the most popular smartphone + tablet OS.

Huh? The most popular tablet operating system is iOS. Android has very little presence in the tablet market. Having smartphone market share won't mean much if Google doesn't make money [androidcommunity.com] from Android, according to their own quarterlies.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115447)

One is the designer and developer of the most popular smartphone + tablet OS.

Huh? The most popular tablet operating system is iOS.>

Your Reality Distortian Field Generator(tm) is going haywire.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115533)

Your Reality Distortian Field Generator(tm) is going haywire

Really? [cnet.com]

Come on guys, a little research goes a long way.

Re:FB and Google are NOT in the same situation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115397)

Google is loosing money on the Android OS... (just look at what they've had to spend in beefing up their patent portfolio to hold off trolls and rotten fruit). The profit comes from sales in the google play store and advertisements. Facebook makes tons of money from Zynga, but you don't play Zynga games on your mobile device through your Facebook app. (Not to mention the Facebook app is horribad.) Sooo, while I might not agree with Mark Cuban, I can understand his logic. However, I also believe both companies can adapt. It's not like they have Steve Balmer at the helm....

Of course they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115555)

I find it strange for you to dismiss Facebook as a social network website when Google recently announced that it was shifting its services toward social networking. They view Facebook as a direct threat because Facebook has replaced email and the web for a lot of people. The same issues facing Facebook also face Google, such as limited data plans and a decrease in revenue from mobile advertising compared to traditional web advertising (which is why Facebook lowered its revenue forecast days before its IPO).

I realize that this is Slashdot which is rah-rah-Google/anti-Facebook, but honestly, both companies have reached a stagnation point.

Also, iOS is the #1 tablet operating system, not Android. Without carrier infrastructure, Android has not been able to gain a foothold in that market. Really, people place way too much emphasis on marketshare rather than revenue and long-term profitability. Plenty of companies have had majority marketshare and then became irrelevant, from IBM to Microsoft.

Google is invincible (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115183)

A shift in usage from desktops to mobile will not take down Google; if anyone were in a position to embrace this sort of change, Google would be a top contender. As for Facebook, I would venture to say that it is reaching the end of its life-cycle.

Re:Google is invincible (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115327)

A shift in usage from desktops to mobile will not take down Google; if anyone were in a position to embrace this sort of change, Google would be a top contender. As for Facebook, I would venture to say that it is reaching the end of its life-cycle.

Google is like a Road Map, which collects a little bit from any gas station, restaurant or hotel you ask about along the way. They are a starting point and make money on referal.

facebook is a destination. You go there to share pictures, natter a bit or nose around your connections connections connections. If you want to research anything to buy you go back to Google.

Another pro-Google astroturfer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115453)

There are multiple anonymous posters in Google stories that try to dismiss the article and sway conversation away from negativity toward Google. Notice that they often use the same speech patterns and scripts. Come on, "Google is invincible"?

Dallas Mavericks Owner (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115223)

How did Google get dragged into this? Google's main source of revenue is through ads and unlike Facebook, that includes mobile and video ads. Unlike Facebook, Google has a vast array of projects/services and is constantly developing new ones. Google is truly an innovative company willing to find the next great techonology. How can this be compared to a company that lets users add photos to a webpage to showboat about themselves or their family. Stick to baseball, Mr Cuban.

Re:Dallas Mavericks Owner (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115395)

Everybody is dissing Facebook right now. Cuban would just be one more voice proclaiming "Facebook is dying!" Throw Google in there, despite the fact that it doom dominates mobile search; and well now you've got a nice trollish article.

No Need For Elaborate Explinations (2)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115275)

Smart money knows that no company in the world should be valued at $86 billion when its profits are just $1.8 billion.

Re:No Need For Elaborate Explinations (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115703)

Income Capitalization would disagree with you.
Keep in mind, that within 2 weeks GOOG was 20% lower the opening. And the seemed to survive that.

pln t ntrdc mmnl cmmnctn stndrd (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115279)

ll mk mllns!

Re:pln t ntrdc mmnl cmmnctn stndrd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115497)

Y mssplld "mnml" [/grmmr nz]

Re:pln t ntrdc mmnl cmmnctn stndrd (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115697)

N, y wll mr lkly g bnkrpt. Bsds, th Hbrw lngg hs bn nvntd lrdy.

Area man proves that wealth != intelligence (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115295)

Yes, mobile is important, but it's not some totally new paradigm. People do most of the same things on mobile that they do on desktops, and the difference is narrowing all of the time. It's true that facebook has been a bit slow to develop on mobile, but it hardly matters in the long run as they're not seeing any real competition in that space.

And yes, ad rates are lower for mobile (for now), but the user base is exploding, so revenue is still increasing.

TL;DR Mark Cuban is just throwing around buzz words to sound relevant.

Poppycock (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115335)

Google has the most popular mobile operating system, and has working HUD glasses, I dont see how life is going to be difficult for them.

Re:Poppycock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115403)

Ah yes, and working HUD glasses has what percentage of the market? They're neat in concept and they've been out there for a long time, just like VR and just like VR they're going nowhere no matter how well they work or how much money is spent trying to refine them.

Re:Poppycock (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115911)

Ah yes, and working HUD glasses has what percentage of the market? They're neat in concept and they've been out there for a long time, just like VR and just like VR they're going nowhere no matter how well they work or how much money is spent trying to refine them.

Just like motion controls will never go anywhere. And ebooks, too, because people like the feel of paper under their fingers too much, and you can't get that from a screen.

If man were meant to fly, he'd have been born with wings.

Re:Poppycock (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115991)

Google Glass and VR are not the same thing at all. Google glass sets out to solve a fairly decent problem. How do we integrate all these wonderful feeds and sensors and data into a cohesive system that is both omnipresent and mostly transparent? SO many times in my life i wish i had a head mounted camera for a quick note or shot of something. Im not saying I want to record every second of my life, bu you cant deny live telemetry via google glass could be VERY powerful stuff. Google glass is the question, not particularly the answer.

Google's mobile Ad revenue (5, Informative)

v1x (528604) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115377)

According to this article [eweek.com] , Google is estimated to bring in $4 billion in mobile Ad revenue in 2012. Even if these estimates were off by (a generous) 25%, that still sounds like a lot of money. What exactly am I missing here that led the Forbes author to predict Google's demise? I must admit I don't know much about where Facebook stands in this regard.

Re:Google's mobile Ad revenue (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115715)

That he as a trollish ass that make money from stirring things up.
As if Google and facebook aren't mobile.

Does he know a lot of "smart money?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115427)

cause he made his selling broadcast.com to yahoo idiots for about 6 billion more then it was ever worth.

Utter BS (1)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115443)

Facebook is what people use their Smart Phones for! When Facebook needs a new revenue stream it can extract money from Verizon and AT&T for letting their users access it with mobile devices.

Wasn't it obvious? (4, Insightful)

Hackysack (21649) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115463)

Simple grade 3 math explained why the shares went down. It's hard to justify that kind of multiple of earnings. Their income growth rate makes it unlikely it'll ever sustain that kind of value. It's got nothing to do with generational shifts to mobile.

Facebook is different than Google, very different. Facebook is one well developed web app, with remarkable popularity. Google is founded on the strengths of their search engine. Search is key, search is where you start. Search means you're looking for something, and susceptible to being introduced to something else that you might not have been looking for. Facebook is a tool, an application. Ads in applications diminish my experience with my application, ads in my tools make me not use said tool.

Re:Wasn't it obvious? (1)

pablodiazgutierrez (756813) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115953)

Fair enough, but Amazon's P/E is more than double that of Facebook's, and I don't hear many people calling on it...

Mark Cuban knows a lot about... Mark Cuban (2)

gavron (1300111) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115475)

It's true he invested money into Real networks (anyone use RealPlayer lately? Thought not.)
Mark is a good example of the write once-read-many kind of things.

Sadly, everything he's ever touched has ended up on the back end of a donkey.
Real-networks. Sorry, glad you made your buck back, nobody uses it.
The Mavericks? Yes, they won... nothing.
HDnet? That's like the ONLY US HD TV network never to succeed in HD.

Mark Cuban is the Charlie Brown of kicking a good investment to the... whoops,
Lucy just pulled it out from right under him. /. mods - suck it.

E

Re:Mark Cuban knows a lot about... Mark Cuban (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115577)

The Mavericks? Yes, they won... nothing.

Mavs are the defending NBA champions, although they were bounced out of the opening round of the playoffs this year.

They also made the finals in 2006.

Re:Mark Cuban knows a lot about... Mark Cuban (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115609)

"In 1995, Cuban and fellow Indiana University alumnus Todd Wagner started [what would become] Broadcast.com. In 1999, during the dot com boom, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock. After the sale of Broadcast.com, Cuban diversified his wealth to avoid exposure to a market crash."

There is a reason that he is filthy rich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban [wikipedia.org]

Re:Mark Cuban knows a lot about... Mark Cuban (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40116005)

The Mavericks won the championship last season. This is not exactly nothing.

Why do people care what Cuban thinks again? (5, Insightful)

EjectButton (618561) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115481)

Yahoo stupidly paid a couple billion to Cuban for a worthless website at the height of the dot-com boom.

Since then he has goofed around with sports teams and had a bunch of failed business ventures. Apparently on Slashdot this makes you a technology genius who's every blog post is front page material.

I having a problem with credibility here... (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115529)

Don't get me wrong, the forces that be, want desperately to make desktops go away... They can't be locked down or locked in the way mobile devices can be, and the people who use them well are unruly, demand their right and freedom, and typically don't play well with service providers walking all over them. So I understand the pundits claiming the PC is dead long live the mobile device!!!

The problem is that there's this peculiar thing. Its called a DISPLAY, and the one on a COMPUTER is just a wee bit larger than a hamster's cage mirror, sized display that passes for a screen on smartphones. I swear there will in 50 years be an entire generation of blind people dancing to their retro ringtones from devices long abandoned for the health problems. I personally want a great big, huge frigging display. One that won't make every person over 35 squint so hard, they look like they're doing a Clint Eastwood imitation. I want to see what I'm working on without having a microfilm reader's lens welded to my eyes. I like movies and art that fill my field of vision. I like lots of windows up so I can code, and debug, and document, and browse, and email, and edit pictures all at the same friggin time.

If the price of my great big display is that it sadly that leaves room for greedy clowns to slip advertisement into my field of view, so be it, I have to keep getting more creative to keep the stupid stuff out. This is a request for the world at large. Someone out there. Provide commercial media without commercials and people will gladly pay the premium. I would, in a heart beat!

Ticking clock on PageRank patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115543)

I think that'll hurt Google some. When does that run out? Of course, PageRank isn't really that great, and they've had to tweak it over the years; but if they don't innovate beyond "Google has returned 1,254,352 results, 10 of which you have time to realize aren't actually relevant", then they will flounder. Self driving cars? Don't want.

FaceBook? Never wanted. I guess it just goes to show how out of touch I am with "normal" American idiots.

Google Lumped in with Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115559)

I find it odd that they would identify Google as being threatened by the same problem. First of all Google search defined successful online advertising (Yup that was what I was looking for, and yup, Google got paid). Not to mention Google Apps tend to have both a free and commercial version. The reason Facebook tanked was pure Greed, and stupidity.

Re:Google Lumped in with Facebook? (2)

RedDeadThumb (1826340) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115713)

It makes sense if you realize Mark Cuban has a burr up his butt over Google.

Dont forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115741)

Google bought Motorola's mobile and cable top business.....

what a joke the posts are aorund here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115801)

first a blind man cant figure out that traffic for bittorent has gone dwn NOT cause there are fewer pirates but cause the standard video codec makes videos at half the size AKA 12.7 X2 = 25.5% compared to previous year they didn't do it at 17% = fail....
then this garbage post where the word idiot just cant be said loud enough...

NO really
how many people do i know with a smart phone ....1 out of hundreds why? its too damn expensive and ill add a home pc can do i dunno TONS more. they are better then xboxs for games...they can make phone calls , they can program and make games if i want to ....they can OMG lets be stupid oh wait the poster is american i forgot your math skills ratings im sorry carry on be stupid....

Interesting title, story is pickled herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40115959)

This story is beyond hilarious in how incorrect it is. Turns out the main link is to blog of some "expert" (from self-help book business) which apparently got picked up by some Web 2.0 hyper at Forbes. As has already been pointed out in this article, both of these companies are already doing well in the mobile world. This guy Eric Jackson who picked up this brainfart on Forbes is right about now giving a bad name for the magazine and defacing Forbes, a usually insightful business magazine.

What if flat data plans are coming to mobile? (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40115999)

At least, here I can get a mobile flat data plan for 15€/month. This would make Mark Cuban's point moot.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?