Opera is at less than 2%, and dropping.
Usage share of web browsers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Facebook in talks to buy Opera to create "Facebook Browser"
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Opera is at less than 2%, and dropping.
Usage share of web browsers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, AOL bought Netscape and made it more and more bloated and drove everyone away.
Honestly, my brain has overloaded with the amount of illogic I am hearing. Facebook will not FORCE people to use their browser. Also, you speak as if, Facebook developers are the only developers on the world. There are thousands of web developers, which only continues to increase, and their innovations still have not touched the world.
Also, you speak as if EVERYONE in the world is on Facebook, and you also speak, as if EVERYONE on Facebook's 900 million "users" are active every day. Please take a look at this quote:
Anyone with a logical brain will see, that Facebook's peak has been hit, and is on a decline. Facebook is ancient, like Google, Microsoft, IBM. Their time is up. They won Social Media, like Google Won Search, like Microsoft won Operating Systems/Office Documents, like IBM won servers.
-CCarter (WickedFire Guru of Gurus via Gambit's Guru-ship)
Also, you speak as if EVERYONE in the world is on Facebook, and you also speak, as if EVERYONE on Facebook's 900 million "users" are active every day. Please take a look at this quote:
Anyone with a logical brain will see, that Facebook's peak has been hit, and is on a decline. Facebook is ancient, like Google, Microsoft, IBM. Their time is up. They won Social Media, like Google Won Search, like Microsoft won Operating Systems/Office Documents, like IBM won servers.
-CCarter (WickedFire Guru of Gurus via Gambit's Guru-ship)
Gambit, Those that do not learn from the past, are condemned to repeat it. Where is AOL now? You know what AOL did that was gangster and and allowed them to really go out like a bang? They bought Time Warner... Remember, AOL BOUGHT Time Warner. Then it was "AOL Time Warner"... Then those AOL executives (Now Time Warner executives) said a couple of years later, let's drop AOL from the name... Biggest heist of the century. So AOL essentially couldn't survive it's own existence, bought a cable company, then said screw the AOL shit...
-CCarter (WickedFire Guru of Gurus via Gambit's Guru-ship)
you are all missing the bigger picture here. Gambit is not just a Wickedfire Guru, he has provided Facebook with their salvation. He has forever changed the face of the internet.
that's not true and was discussed here.
Also time warner's exec were the ones wanting the split. AOL's execs were getting the short stick.
Also what enabled the merger at the first place was the dotcom bubble, which made tech companies(and AOL as the biggest one) to look like they are worth a lot of money.
Also AOL is worth 2,6 billion. Quite impressive for a dead company, if you ask me...
AOL failed to keep up with broadband technology. They tied themselves to the phone lines and never caught back up.
AOL to buy Time Warner in historic merger - CNET News
AOL Buys Time Warner for $162 billion - ABC News
Time Warner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EXPLAIN TO ME, How I am incorrect? When you buy a company, the bought company is at the end of the new company. The dominate company COMES FIRST. AOL TIME WARNER.
It was only after the fact, that people started stated it was a "merger".
Look at the section on the wikipedia entrance, where it states 2000, "In 2000, a new company called AOL Time Warner was created when AOL purchased Time Warner for US$164 billion."
All Guru's have logical brains. I figured a Guru of Gurus would already know that.
Let me use my logical brain to explain that there are 2 types of companies:
1. Companies that are good at innovating.
2. Companies that blow goats when it comes to innovating.
You can't lump the two together.
AOL, Yahoo, Kodak, IBM, Circuit City, Borders, Nokia, RIM, Blockbuster. These are companies that suck or have sucked at innovating. It just wasn't built into their company culture. Businesses that can't adapt in this new rapidly shifting ecosystem will be left behind.
Facebook isn't in that group. Innovation is what is driving the company.
Companies like Google, Amazon, Zappos, Apple, Facebook have anticipated changes and solved problems before they happened. It's built into their core culture. They don't put themselves in a box of being "a Search Company", "an Online Retailer", "a Social Network" like the former companies did.
examples:
Google, originally a search company, bought Youtube (the future of TV) for a steal of a price. Google made Android and Chrome to capture additional markets.
Amazon, originally an online retail business, is also innovating to dominate the cloud.
Apple, originally a PC company, innovated to the music space, and soon will own a large part of the growing eBook space.
AOL, Yahoo, Kodak, Borders, RIM, Blockbuster were all too bullheaded to admit that they were dinosaurs on the verge of becoming extinct. Facebook and Google can't be grouped in that category because they accept that the landscape is changing, and make moves to always be one step ahead.
TL;DR:
Google isn't going to die. Facebook isn't going to die.
AOL is dead. Yahoo is dead.
It all comes down to innovation.
-Gambit
(WickedFire Guru)
Thank you. They say that some of the world's most influential people have been scorned during their lifetime.
If I must become a martyr to pave the road to salvation for mankind, then that is precisely what I'll do.
Gambit, how does your church work: do I give you 10% or 25% of my income in exchange for salvation?
You're so hipster do you tell girls to add you on Myspace?
You're so hipster do you tell girls to add you on Myspace?
Irrelevant. Users sign into FB, there's a pale yellow thing at the top saying "You don't appear to be using the FB browser, click here to download it for X features that make your life easier".
That'll vastly increase that 2% - almost a billion people use FB, that's more than 1/6 of the entire world.
The amount shared on Facebook is doubling every year.
Of course their growth is slowing down a bit though, there's only so many people using the internet, and only a certain proportion of those are ever going to be open to social networking.
FB growth is slowing down because the market itself is not expanding fast enough. (i.e. total number of internet users). Its primary market is people aged 18-35. There's only so many people with internet access in that demographic. They have 1 in 6 of every damn person in the world in their database.
You're just plain wrong on this, and clearly completely detached from Facebook's core demographic.
Anyone that quotes Myspace, or talks about decline or whatever else clearly isn't an avid user of Facebook, or see's what's going on. Every year I see more being shared on Facebook. Of those I went to school with, there's not a single person I'd want to communicate with, that I can't communicate with via Facebook and get a reply within a day, perhaps 2 max.
That kind of engagement is unprecedented by any previous web company. It's not going to disappear over night, and I'm yet to witness any decline.
We're seeing a stage of the net where things start to merge together, a consolidation phase as such. There'll be new and interesting start-ups still, but they'll focus on tackling new problems.
Whilst crude illustrates how all the big social networks are different. Pinterest for example isn't a competitor, but it's a new thing that people are using in addition to other social networks.
Another social network akin to Facebook will not overthrow them, unless they royally cock up (massive law suits, country-wide bans, that kinda crap). The massive network Facebook has in place is just too big to hope to compete with.
We appreciate you contributing a tithe of 10% to the church. If you are able to give more, you are encouraged to do so.
Remember, the rewards you reap from donating to our mission will be tenfold.
You're an idiot, you didn't even read anything. It was "called" a merger, but it was actually AOL buying Time Warner. READ. Everything you state, is invalid after this.
if you think facebook is so great then why didnt you invest in the ipo i think i know why because it sucks.
LOL
No, it was a merger, but it was "called" a buying.
for reference:
1)
SOMETHING YOU QUOTED:
Time Warner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2)
AOL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions
Something which DID NOT HAPPEN.
They both had their own exec teams.
Please, make sure you read, before you state something.
This is a great and valid point. But you are still speaking as if Facebook is the end all be all to web development. There are companies and groups of people creating innovative technologies, outside the grasp Facebook, just like Facebook was outside the grasp of Google, and Google was outside the grasp of Microsoft.
The point was that you were coming to the conclusion, that Facebook will be the internet, touch all parts of the internet. Maybe, I doubt that will happen, since they are now public, and have to start churning out better Profit margins now. They will need to chill out with buying this and that, and start generating more profit for their investors, otherwise, their stock will continue it's downward tumble.