1 billion users? That would be a joke if it was not for the fact that people are roaming around with more than one profile to perform different kind of activities, like gaming, friends, families, trolling, developer test profiles, multiple profiles to provide comments in countries where opinions are censored, etc, not to forget "active" users like peoples cats, dogs, snakes, rabbits, underage kids, view-my-pretty-babies who cannot type, etc. I wonder if even a 100 million would a realistic estimate.
The FB community gets nothing for all the time invested in that site. People do not earn from using the product, and if anything, the community "as a whole" has no way of supporting itself while spending their valuable time on FB pages (except those that find ways of marketing products to these same dumbed down flock). A McDonalds customer gets a service and product for money spent. Even spending money on a movie ticket would have some sort of a return more than using FB (though I do not recommend those sky high prices either). Any virtual entertainment value from FB is boasting about yourself, or letting others know what you're doing, liking every minute of the day. All the tool does is make someone else rich. Congratulations if you're one of these end users for helping make that happen. I sincerely hope none of the FB users are the ones that frequent the occupy wall street or the 1 percent movement, or griping about the rich having so much, or inflation going through the wall, because if you are, here's a classic story of how it works. You are in fact making it happen when you use these kind of solutions.
My view to make money is to invest in Titan Pharmaceutical. They have a potential solution to heroin addiction, a multi billion dollar problem for the US.
I bought TTNP at .70 and will sell at $3+
FB is a 50% growth potential spot in a year perhaps. I skipped buying it. You can make a lot more with TTNP, imo.
The funny bit is there is probably more users that google stuff than users that facebook stuff. Yet google has a more realistic number. Not sure how FB was even allowed to go public with their fake userbase number. These kind of fake statistics should be reviewed by SEC for cheating public shareholders.
its probably more like 400mil active users. i know because i have 2 or 3 accounts i used once then never again lol..
not sure if they account for "closed" accounts either or if they just stay inactive.
either way, FB is a fraud obviously, like goldman.
Facebook valued at 104 billion is a joke. There are other companies valued at far less than that amount that provide usable and tangible products. FB has nothing more than profile, friends, photos, primitive email and messaging, and a way of getting other companies to plug-in their apps (eg games, birthdays, blogs). A majority of these app building companies are not profitable ventures yet, probably 1-2 that get blown up in the media like Zynga. The same options from FB exist in other social networking sites. I guess Zuck and his developers are laughing their way to the bank at being able to blindside the public.
Further, there is a difference between social networking/marketing tools, search Engine tools and a tech company. Reaching a billion customers in no way makes FB a "tech stock" (per the original posters question). CNN, BBC, Blogging sites, etc are not tech stocks just because they can reach/advertise to huge customer bases. FB is not in the business of building and selling technological tools and services. So also Google, however much they would prefer to be in the technology rather than media business. In the future, all companies that build it's own applications that reach multiple consumer bases will want to be shelved as technology even if they are in the business of reaching a certain market section (eg search engines optimization for plumbing). This kills the concept of classifications, groups, or clusters. Tomorrow if FB decides to move in a different direction towards a tech-centric business, they can be classified as such. For the moment however I for one do not believe that this is the right approach. I have stated my thinking. You, of course, have the opinion of believing otherwise.
For anyone wondering where social networking sites (SNS) get their revenues from,
SNS bank on the concept that it can gather as much information from the way users behave on it's sites, objects/events they like, friends that like the same criteria. They can then easily target ads to those same demographics. Further, when one user buys something, notifications may be sent through unsuspecting options to friends of the user trying to "convince" them into purchasing more of the same item. I've been to some internal meetings for social network tracking. It's fantastic and scary in a crazy way how anything and everything of an individual user can be observed, tracked, deduced, and stored for later use to the company's advantage.
Ads are what sometimes display at the left side of the SNS wall screens (your right side).
In a truly funny sort of way, users that believe they have a free tool and are able to reach out to friends/family they have not met in years, are actually confirming their acceptance to be tracked (what I would like to call a "consensual phishing" scam on a huge magnitude), thereby opening up the playground for future spam, and/or malpractices. Note it is always to a company's advantage, since it forms the bottom line of the firm. Users are but a basis for them to improve their profit margins.
Bravo! I've been trying to convince many facebook users of this fact. Unfortunately, most do not care or think you are paranoid. The new tracking era is growing rapidly.
Here's an example:
A recent Facebook acquisition, ambient social location startup Glancee, could prove very useful in this area. Glancee knows where you are, runs in the background of your phone and tells you when a friend of yours is nearby. When integrated within Facebook, that could be a powerful tool. Thinking a step further though, Facebook could also use Glancee’s technology to connect not just people to people, but also people to stores, merchants and restaurants. All Glancee needs to do is treat physical locations like it does people and add some type of incentive for the user to go to that business, with which Facebook has presumably cut a deal. That could be a location-aware push notification based on your interest graph. For instance, I like sports, I am passing a sports bar that is offering happy-hour specials, I get a push notification.
What may appear cool and innocent in its convenience will someday be an obvious intrusion. Best known as function creep.
At $38, FB was projected at 20 times it's current earnings. FB was touted as having almost 1 billion users. Now if we do so say that FB meets it's target and reaches it's 20x goal, it would mean 20 billion users. Does something seem wrong here? There are only 7 billion people in the world. And even at 7 billion do you REALLY believe that they all are dying to get on FB. If you research correctly you may find articles on how 2-3 of every 5 users interviewed have cancelled or do not plan to ever get onto that bandwagon. At the most there may be only about a 100 million users, if even that much. Take out of the equation about 4-6 game profile accounts per single individual, users that have pet accounts, band pages and numerous accounts for their band members, multiple accounts for developers that test the products, multiple accounts for advertisers that do not want to be recognized with different products, multiple accounts for users to check how their account looks when it is locked, etc, multiple accounts for stalkers. This is all from a first person perspective since I have sat it on meetings where these kind of cases were discussed.
FB is highly overpriced. Zuckerberg did what he needed to do, which is to hype the product out of the market and milk it out on the rest of the gullible investors when they bid without research. From here on out, his profits have been made. This product should not have been at even $100 million. It's another dot com joke who's hype was pushed down everyone's throat.
@ My views on. I totaly agree with you and glad to read what you wrote here. I have been trying to figure out what this business model is going to do for long term financial income, it's nothing more than an air bubble. 104 Billion? how? it's like saying gmail is worth 500 billion and needs it's own IPO. I predict $3 by the end of June.
The Instagram deal was priced way over market. Everyone was surprised over the deal. Even Zuck went ahead with closing the deal behind shut doors before announcing it to his financiers, probably because he knew it wasn't worth as much. In this industry the more noise someone creates about a product, the more it sells (aka Kardashian, Bieber, etc). In a saner market, both Instagram and Pinterest would probably be worth some million, (if even that considering no determined way has been established as of yet for making money off model).
Even at a pessimistic estimate of 250 million users, FB has managed to make Zuck $425/user just for using the product. Hopefully all FB users feel that they have received a value of more than that amount to be using that product (standard economics, buy something that has the same or more value). If however there are closer to less than a 100 million active users, then each user has netted FB approximately $1000.