Mark Zuckerberg interview on 60 Minutes

i agree that facebook is a fad, and can't wait to see what becomes of it in the next 5-10 years.

myspace making a comeback??
 


I would have sold out at 1 billion and walked away.

Enough to live like a king for the rest of life, and not deal with any BS, backlash, or competitors ever again.

you certainly would if you were all about the money. But look at this guys life - he's one of the richest people on the planet, and he's not off living some ridiculous playboy lifestyle like an idiot pro athlete. He's working his ass off, at his nondescript desk surrounded by his coders, wearing t-shirts and flip flops.

The "he's going to blow it all" speculation is a crock.
 
The way i see it, in my opinion, Facebook is a fad. Similar to MySpace, eXanga, etc etc. It will always "remain" on the internet, but as time goes on, their limitations on what they can do will become greater and greater. Comparing FB to Google is laughable at best. I would say in the next 2-4 years we will see a completely different approach to "social networking" and it'll be interesting to see what Facebook does when they actually have a viable competitor.

And no i don't really have "respect" for Zuckerburg. He has a good product, and sure his net worth is 50+ billion, but what the fuck has he ever done positively on the business side of Facebook?

I hate Facebook, and the whole concept of social networks to be honest. But I'm also smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Comparing Facebook to MySpace is like comparing Megan Fox to a busted up circus midget. Do some research on the Open Graph, then see if you think it's a fad. In a few years, you'll be logging onto the Internet through your Facebook account. They are building identity into what used to be a mostly anonymous Internet. Think about the value of that.

You do realize Facebook already controls 23% of all display advertising online - more than Google, Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft combined. Now with the Open Graph they have hundreds of thousands of sites already (and growing everyday) that have integrated the Open Graph so that their visitors can have a universal log-in (with their facebook credentials of course), and so they can share their "likes", interests etc with their friends. This information is owned by Facebook, not the sites implementing the Open Graph. With this information, they can build individual marketing profiles on everybody that reaches far deeper than demographics ever could. Advertisers will no longer have to infer what your age, race, sex, politics, interests, etc are because you've already provided it all right there in your Facebook profile.

This also means that when they decide to offer site owners the ability to have Facebook manage their ad space that they can offer more per click than Google can on their content ads, because the ads will be far more targeted thanks to this super targeted data that they have on everyone. This also means higher CTR's for site owners, which means more money, which means there will be a mass exodus away from Google ads for site owners which will take a massive amount of revenue away from Google, and put it right in their pockets.

Furthermore, sites that have integrated the Open Graph protocol are already showing up in Facebook search, whereas sites that haven't implemented it do not. Talk about another huge impetus to get site owners to become part of the Open Graph - the amount of traffic that Facebook can deliver to your sites from searches is huge. Once Google begins to lose all of this revenue to Facebook, I wouldn't be surprised to Facebook acquire them in order to get a hold of Google's superior search technology and really put the icing on the cake.
 
Lol what you guys don't understand he literally doesn't have $50 billion or anywhere remotely close to that in his bank accounts. Facebook literally just turned slightly profitable 10 months ago.
 
I hate Facebook, and the whole concept of social networks to be honest. But I'm also smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Comparing Facebook to MySpace is like comparing Megan Fox to a busted up circus midget. Do some research on the Open Graph, then see if you think it's a fad. In a few years, you'll be logging onto the Internet through your Facebook account. They are building identity into what used to be a mostly anonymous Internet.

You do realize Facebook already controls 23% of all display advertising online - more than Google, Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft combined. Now with the Open Graph they have hundreds of thousands of sites already (and growing everyday) that have integrated the Open Graph so that their visitors can have a universal log-in (with their facebook credentials of course), and so they can share their "likes", interests etc with their friends. This information is owned by Facebook, not the sites implementing the Open Graph. With this information, they can build individual marketing profiles on everybody that reaches far deeper than demographics ever could. This means that when they decide to offer site owners the ability to have Facebook manage their ad space that they can offer more per click than Google can on their content ads, because the ads will be far more targeted thanks to this super targeted data that they have on everyone. This also means higher CTR's for site owners, which means more money, which means there will be a mass exodus away from Google ads for site owners which will take a massive amount of revenue away from Google, and put it right in their pockets.

Furthermore, sites that have integrated the Open Graph protocol are already showing up in Facebook search, whereas sites that haven't implemented it do not. Talk about another huge impetus to get site owners to become part of the Open Graph - the amount of traffic that Facebook can deliver to your sites from searches is huge. Once Google begins to lose all of this revenue to Facebook, I wouldn't be surprised to Facebook acquire them in order to get a hold of Google's superior search technology and really put the icing on the cake.

I wasn't comparing Facebook and MySpace business wise, simply following trends in online "social networking". Like i said, Facebook has a great product and developed it well, however, there is only so much they can do. Compared to say, Google, would you ever buy a "Facebook" phone? A "Facebook" gaming system? A "Facebook" TV? Etc. Never. I also feel that Facebook lately has been very late to adapt to trends in the social networking space, and have poorly implemented them. ie. Facebook Places, Tagging friends, and the whole messaging shit.

In terms of their advertising revenue, yes, display advertising is HUGE with Facebook. But like I said, what happens when Facebook actually gets a viable competitor with a similar business structure as theirs in a few years? The reason Facebook beat MySpace is they were "newer" "hipper", coded better and looked better. When something new comes out that meets those criteria like Facebook did before, Mark and FB will more then likely have to do a complete 180 to stay in the game where they are now.

I won't even comment on Facebook "acquiring" Google, thanks for the laughs.
 
I wasn't comparing Facebook and MySpace business wise, simply following trends in online "social networking". Like i said, Facebook has a great product and developed it well, however, there is only so much they can do. Compared to say, Google, would you ever buy a "Facebook" phone? A "Facebook" gaming system? A "Facebook" TV? Etc. Never.

Why would they want to develop those? That's like asking if anybody would ever buy a car made by Nintendo.

In terms of their advertising revenue, yes, display advertising is HUGE with Facebook. But like I said, what happens when Facebook actually gets a viable competitor with a similar business structure as theirs in a few years? The reason Facebook beat MySpace is they were "newer" "hipper", coded better and looked better. When something new comes out that meets those criteria like Facebook did before, Mark and FB will more then likely have to do a complete 180 to stay in the game where they are now.

All businesses have to adapt or they slowly lose market share until eventually a new competitor puts them out of business.

I won't even comment on Facebook "acquiring" Google, thanks for the laughs.

See above.
 
Bottom line is this: he's a dirt bag who stole an idea, blatantly bragged and lied about it, and he built a site that went viral and grew itself really--big fucking whoop. Only difference is when a site goes viral it grows and has repeat users. You don't have to be smart to build a billion dollar company as quickly as this took place, you just have to let the pieces come together.

Overall this guy is in karma debt up to his eye balls so it'll be interesting to see him get served by the universe over the next 10 years

Whether he "stole" the idea or not the twins were nicely compensated a whopping $65 million for a company they never even helped grow and flourish (and they are still bitching and going after more $$)

Why didn't they just continue with their HarvardConnect.com or ConnectU projects and hire other programmers if "you don't have to be smart to build a billion dollar company?"
 
I think I remember another interview where he said he wouldn't watch the movie. Think it was with diane sawyer or something.

Myspace is stepping it up though, did you see their logo? Not sure if its new but its My then a space (My______). You get what they did there?
 
Hating on Zuckerberg is just too funny.

How many times have you ripped a landing page or even just made something similar?

I'm sorry but someone who builds a $30-50b company before they hit 30 has done enough to be considered a genius in my book. When social networks like Myspace already existed.
 
Friendster coming back strong in the '11.

Zuckerberg is a sneaky fuck. Those e-mails tell the story. Im surprised those overgrown twins didn't beat the shit of that curly haired fuck.

:xmas-smiley-010:
 
Big fan of this new profile. You really can learn more about someone right away. "Founder of this company, lives here, went to school there, originally from blah, brother of this guy". On the left side, I show my list of "Best Men" and my family... I like it.

Anyway, good interviews. Even if you hate it, you gotta recognize the value in it.
 
The difference between Facebook and competitors, is that Facebook is developing a culture of shipping code (hack-a-thons etc.) whereas competitors spend a lot of time building mammoth stuff like Wave and Buzz which are pretty much DOA.

I disagree.

Name one technological advancement related to programming that FaceBook has developed that hasn't already been done before.


Hating on Zuckerberg is just too funny.

How many times have you ripped a landing page or even just made something similar?

I'm sorry but someone who builds a $30-50b company before they hit 30 has done enough to be considered a genius in my book. When social networks like Myspace already existed.

Just because someone makes lots of money doesn't necessarily make them a genius.
 
The big question, in my mind, is when will it go the way of Myspace? Myspace was "super-awesome" but once "everyone" was on board, it wasn't cool anymore.

There's an interview out there with Sorkin, Timberlake, Fincher and the young guy who played Zuckerberg's best friend and when someone in the audience asks them if they have Facebook accounts, they all throw out super pretentious responses, like "No way, I've got a life, blah blah blah"

It makes me wonder if we aren't reaching the high water mark for Facebook soon.
 
I disagree.

Name one technological advancement related to programming that FaceBook has developed that hasn't already been done before.
I must not have explained myself well. I don't claim they are changing the world with code, that is what Google tried to do with Buzz and Wave.

Facebook has made it their mission to ship features (get them out the door) and they just take what you do outside Facebook, and bring it inside Facebook. Not revolutionary, but keeps them relevant, and tightens their hold on users.