Date: August 26th, 2010 11:31 AM Author: exciting amber black woman faggot firefighter
Orkut, Knol, Wave, Buzz, "Google Me," shitloads of failure form Google because they're all aspies and don't know what to do after you make a cool algorithm and make a large e-mail inbox.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:20 PM Author: sexy supple theater
The frontend has changed into a meta search engine. Hosting video data that few people access now incurs minimal cost for a company like Google. Everyone has migrated to Youtube.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:11 PM Author: vigorous spruce old irish cottage native
yep, should have been profitable by 2008. in any case, google buying youtube turned youtube to shit. though, tbf, youtube would have died without google.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:09 PM Author: rachmiel (white knighting)
Orkut's only lost market share since Google bought it. They haven't upgraded its systems adequately and I've read about sluggishness causing a migration to Facebook in its two strongholds, Indian and Brazil.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:11 PM Author: sexy supple theater
I don't play the games or use the apps but it's undeniable genius that facebook has gotten millions of others to do it and spend money on facebook credits and lure in millions of advertising revenues as social media advertising really takes off
Date: August 26th, 2010 11:36 AM Author: rachmiel (white knighting)
Google seems to be fond of copying existing products, adding some nifty features along the way, in a scatterbrained attempt to steal market share. Maybe every company is guilty of this to some degree, but for some reason it annoys me with Google.
Date: August 26th, 2010 11:57 AM Author: rachmiel (white knighting)
I guess the apps are what made Facebook so highly trafficked, so it was all about the almighty dollar. It seems like a circus when I look at that site. Did the site used to have better privacy features?
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:20 PM Author: rachmiel (white knighting)
Changing this place too much is a bad idea. I came to that conclusion a long time ago. Also, people are not exactly keen on advertising their love for this place to their friends.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:19 PM Author: exciting amber black woman faggot firefighter
Obviously, very limited market. But if you make it the right niche and have it very private, people would open up more, and I think there'd be more receptiveness to "offers" on the site. You get local-based businesses pitching products and deals to local students, where an overwhelming number of them are on the network, it's an extremely focused marketing campaign. Bandwidth is cheap.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:24 PM Author: sexy supple theater
Since you host a website you already understand the costs of providing servers and bandwidth. For a massive number of users on a multimedia heavy site, it's not cheap. Now add professional salaries for good developers into that, and you'll be paying hundreds of thousands/yr just to get the site working.
Obviously this will require you to take on funding of some sort, and angel and VC investors will only fund you if they think you'll make a profit.
Every now and then I get bored, buy a domain name, and churn out a niche joke site of some kind. That's rewarding, yes, and it's also virtually free to host on any shared account since I don't get that much traffic. But a social network type site will cost a ton of money, and bleeding thousands a month isn't rewarding when there's no light you're aiming for at the end of the tunnel.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:32 PM Author: sexy supple theater
Jimmy Wales initially funded Wikipedia as a side project of Bomis (which he founded), which made pretty good money off of advertising revenues.
Wikimedia Foundation's goals of openness, information access, collaboration and its audience make it particularly attratice for outside charitable funding. No one would fund a social network aimed at a revival of Facebook's college days as a charity project.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:39 PM Author: rachmiel (white knighting)
Okay, so there's the wealthy benefactor.
And "a social network aimed at a revival of Facebook's college days" could have some pretty noble merits attached to it, too. So, I disagree with you. Also, your friend's site is obviously not being branded correctly for the purpose we've been talking about.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:48 PM Author: sexy supple theater
Yeah, if you have rich people willing to throw their money at you for no expected return, totally go for it. That's the best kind of investment money you can get.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:00 PM Author: flickering puce stage
Lolz.
People like less privacy. You may not like your page being less private, but I bet you love when you can view a hot chick's pics without being her friend, right?
And there's only apps/games clutter because eveyone plays them. They're one of the main reasons ppl stay on FB all day.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:11 PM Author: exciting amber black woman faggot firefighter
This was fucking in response to "why people don't like Facebook anymore." You're right, it's not the demographic, idiot, but this is why 18-25 don't really like it as much or use it in the same way, and what a competing product might have to offer.
I'm not saying FB isn't a pretty brilliant fucking company that is dominant. I'm saying, it has flaws.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:11 PM Author: Excitant seedy reading party
Dammit, I never stalked a hot chick on Facebook. I used to still ask them for their numbers and call them.
Knowing what I know now, it would have been so easy to just meet a girl at a party, and then post something stupid on her wall, and then rail her the next week. DAMMIT!!!!!!!111!!!!!!
Date: August 26th, 2010 11:42 AM Author: Arousing chad internal respiration
It's just the way silicon valley is. You make a revolutionary product, you use the revenues extracted from that product to make some pretty good products, then you get old and out of touch. There's a MUCH bigger element of luck in internet/software startups than there is in other businesses. The only guy in the valley who stays fresh again and again is steve jobs, but that's mainly because he's in hardware and knows how to make things look way sexier than anything the competitors have.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:24 PM Author: Chocolate Brethren Dilemma
eh, they have that pet project thing on Fridays where everyone can develop whatever crap idea they have. Allows for plenty of turnover - not everything is a success.
I, for one, thank the lord for googlemaps everyday. I don't know how profitable it is yet, but it sure as hell as potential to be.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:50 PM Author: Chocolate Brethren Dilemma
It worries me. They save so much information.
Once I was in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin, and I did a googlemaps search from my smartphone. A year later, in NYC, with a new smartphone, I was setting up my googlemaps location, and it suggested that place in the middle of Wisconsin.
Date: August 26th, 2010 12:43 PM Author: rachmiel (white knighting)
Basing your business model so heavily on new media advertising is probably unwise. People have been developing "immunities" to new forms of advertising and it becomes progressively less effective.