With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the same
investment again?
So now all MA has to be done under 20/20 vision? Some business decisions go
south. Imagine that!
As I have said many times already, we're not discussing the shrewdness or
gullibility of the acquirer, but
yeah.. I was thinking the same thing, and, in fact -- just to be sure
I wasn't having a Sarah Palin moment -- forwarded the statement to
someone who orchestrates such deals between the facebooks and the
googles of the world, and he said, That doesn't make sense, and what
it's trying to
Apparently, not a disciple of Webster.
Maybe, Maybe not, the English language has crumbled so much that many
definitions have been lost. I'll explain.
Absolve- You simply think it's forgiveness or remission of sin.
The word actually means: To declare ownership.
Long, long ago, not in a galaxy
Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it
actually doesnt.
And by people, you meant every dictionary. http://tinyurl.com/3kggqo
Ok. Let's say absolve means to own in your galaxy. I still have no
idea what you're talking about.
Jared
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:41 AM,
On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Kontra wrote:
With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the
same
investment again?
So now all MA has to be done under 20/20 vision? Some business
decisions go
south. Imagine that!
Ok. So where is Facebook going? Is it purely a flip
Jared,
Everything's OK so long as the music's still playing.
2008/9/24 Jared Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Kontra wrote:
With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the same
investment again?
So now all MA has to be done under 20/20 vision?
Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated value
streams on social networks? For those interested - it does provide a good
understanding about exactly why MS payed what they did for Facebook.
On Wed, Sep
On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Will Evans wrote:
Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated
value streams on social networks? For those interested - it does
provide a good understanding about
No - I agree that even while having read Shuen's book and understanding her
economic model around user generated value streams - I agree that at least
for facebook, they haven't found the model by which they can actually turn
that value into cash flow - clearly, at least DaveM has stated - there
ok.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Jared Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it actually
doesnt.
And by people, you meant every dictionary. http://tinyurl.com/3kggqo
Ok. Let's say absolve means to own in your galaxy. I still have
This is actually an issue I've been grappling with as it is deeply
relevant to our industry.
A lot of our work these days is done for companies basing their business
plans on social networking and community building sites. This may be a
small slice of the work available to IxD people, but it is a
Ok. So where is Facebook going?
The same place where lots of people (including VCs who couldn't be bothered
with doing decent diligence then) looked at Google a few years ago and
likely said, bleh, it's just another search engine, is there some semblance
of a value statement they can talk to?
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Kontra wrote:
Google extracts value out of mining network effects (PageRank) which
is
increasingly the primary source of revenue for smart companies.
FaceBook has
in just a few years managed to create the largest social network. If
you
don't think that's going
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:47:11 -0400, Will wrote:
Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated value
streams on social networks? For those interested - it does provide a good
understanding about exactly why
What you've seen to-date is conditional success
All FB needs is a SINGLE acquirer to purchase them. Just a single metric:
one company to buy FB. Just like Skype with eBay, MySpace with News Corp,
Bebo with AOL, etc.
When Google bought YouTube it certainly wasn't profitable in any way and it
Kontra,
You're confusing the distinction between success for the individuals
(founders), and the success of the *business*. I'm referring to the latter;
the former is irrelevant to what I'm saying with respect to the business
model.
Regards
Steve
2008/9/23 Kontra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What
You're confusing the distinction between success for the individuals
(founders), and the success of the *business*.
Founders I cited were obviously colorful shorthand for shareholders, as I
have also specifically mentioned them. In fact, I went further to make the
point:
I bet the
Kontra,
Not entirely, no. However, at present what you're seeing is investment in
the expectation of an increase in share price irrespective of the underlying
value of the business. It's the financial equivalent of pass-the-parcel and
hoping you're not left holding the bag.
So yes, current
Not entirely, no. However, at present what you're seeing is investment in
the expectation of an increase in share price irrespective of the underlying
value of the business.
You're making gigantic assumptions here. It's perfectly OK to establish a
company SIMPLY to sell it at the earliest
Kontra,
There is an inherent relationship between a company's core offering,
end user value, and profit. I believe the conversation was using
profit as a measure of success.
If the end game for the investors is merely further investment, yes
they can cash out... but this is pretty
Kontra,
I'd hate to take up any more of your time pontificating about concepts and
ideas to which I'm blind. I think we're a long way from the original point
of this thread, so I'll respectfully agree to disagree and move on.
Regards
Steve
2008/9/23 Kontra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not entirely, no.
On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Kontra wrote:
Perhaps there's a parallel universe where business success means
something
other than shareholders in a company getting satisfaction, but I'm not
living in it. Separating business success from shareholder
success is so
much gobbledygook, I'm
If the end game for the investors is merely further investment, yes they
can cash out... but this is pretty similar to a pyramid scheme.
A company gets investments throughout its lifecycle, from angels to IPO to
acquisition to bonds. It makes no sense to classify a need or desire to get
Kontra,
You are confusing the company and the product. You are further
confusing getting rich, with profit. And the discussion was centered
upon profit as a measure of success. I can not for the life of me see
how you could consider either a product, or a company successful
without some sort of
On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Kontra wrote:
A company gets investments throughout its lifecycle, from angels
to IPO to
acquisition to bonds. It makes no sense to classify a need or desire
to get
investment as a pyramid scheme. Are you saying Skype is/was a
pyramid
scheme because they sold
I can not for the life of me see
how you could consider either a product, or a company successful
without some sort of revenue generation or profit metric.
It's quite simple: YouTube, the product, has been one of the most
spectacularly successful and consumer-appreciated products in the
On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Kontra wrote:
Are you saying Skype is/was a pyramid
scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the scheme of the
founders and
shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon
as they
can?
With what they know today, do you really think eBay
Just a quick note:
Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies they
absolve.
They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Jared Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Kontra wrote:
Are
On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the
companies they
absolve.
They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
I have no idea what that actually means.
best response of the week on this mailing list!
*still laughing*
- Alvin
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jared Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies
they
absolve.
They are
Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies they
absolve.
They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
I have no idea what that actually means. - Jared Spool.
It's very simple. I don't know why you would have 'no idea what that
actually means.'
?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Alvin Woon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
best response of the week on this mailing list!
*still laughing*
- Alvin
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jared Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
Google has no plans
*chuckles*
The confusion doesn't stem from the concept (which is merely another way
of expressing monopolist behavior) but the usage of the word absolve.
Unless Google's truly gone off the deep end, I doubt they've been going
around forgiving companies (what -- you're part of the dot-com
Ahh! I see! In my church the word literally means To own. Many people
don't know this but the infant baptism literally meant To own birthright
(the early Roman Empire did this to own the citizenship of the countries and
people it occupied) The word has evolved to 'forgiveness'. But it really
Apparently, not a disciple of Webster.
On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
Ahh! I see! In my church the word literally means To own.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Tim Au Yeung [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The confusion doesn't stem from the concept (which is merely
Interesting point:
Well done research on social networks and their worldwide uses.
http://royal.pingdom.com/?p=336
Inspired by the original, if a little flawed, mapping from Valleywag.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/238513/The-World-Map-of-Social-Networks
On Sep 20, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Damon Dimmick
I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
And this is a huge problem.
Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?
--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com
I would love to see the comparison study of the design reviews of
people who only saw FB after the new design implementation vs. those
who migrated from the older version. Folks earlier in the thread
might have it right, change is what makes everyone else more negative
toward the new design.
Jarod, thanks for making the point about a sustainable business model.
And also for the stats on user traffic.
I'd love to see the study of how people react to the design in
regards to existing users migrating from the old version vs. the
users who have just recently signed up after the new
On Sep 21, 2008, at 6:48 PM, Kontra wrote:
I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business
model.
And this is a huge problem.
Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?
Yah. Skype's worked out real good for eBay.
On Sep 21, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Krystal R.Higgins wrote:
Out of curiosity, what's the best revenue-producing social
networking site model (MySpace) so far?
eBay and Amazon.
Jared
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association
I was quite happily ignoring this thread until I hit this:
I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business model.
And this is a huge problem.
Wasn't for YouTube. Or Skype. Or MySpace. Etc.
Looking for multimillion-dollar pay-off problems?
I can't but think that being bought
But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
(especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
commerce business.
Social Networks like FB and Twitter need something different.
1) add services that take advantage of the SN ala LinkedIn (BTW, that
might be
Sidenote: If you visit facebook.com with JavaScript disabled, you get
an inspiring blank screen. The source is just two script tags.
--
Santiago Bustelo
Buenos Aires, Argentina
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:34 PM, David Malouf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
(especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
commerce business.
Adding value maybe the proper description on social networking; or
On Sep 22, 2008, at 5:34 AM, David Malouf wrote:
But Jared, those are businesses that have ADDED social networking
(especially the Amazon case) as a means of adding value to their core
commerce business.
I don't know what added means. eBay, from day 1, had their community
and reputation
I think we are defining social networks different. Not everything that is
social is a social network, IMHO.
I don't see really any networking going on in Amazon, or in no way that is
really connected. I don't create friends, I can't even say I want to buy
everything this review buys. I can't make
So an address book?
Facebook might have done this redesign as a means to scale its capabilities
and support future social computing trends. I think this paradigm shift of
contacts being the launch pad for viewing content is important and will be a
natural progression into mobile social computing.
There is a difference between sites that are Social Media Sites, and those
that are Social Networking sites, although some do both. To the degree that
a site encourages basic user generated content, but little else (ratings,
comments, discussions, blog posts, images, video) as opposed to a Social
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Will Evans wrote:
There is a difference between sites that are Social Media Sites, and
those that are Social Networking sites, although some do both. To
the degree that a site encourages basic user generated content, but
little else (ratings, comments,
What if the whole idea of a revenue model is the wrong question? Coming in
from left field here, but does anyone ask, What is the revenue model of the
Boston Commons? The town square?
The implication is that if something does not have a revenue model, it
cannot exist and does not deserve to
I can live w/ that distinction. :)
Again, I want to highlight that LinkedIn might very well be a good example
depending on your point of view of a Social Networking site with a business
model worthy of a valuation.
-- dave
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Will Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
At some level, do you not make an assessment of value and the
expenditure of resources? In some cases the return may not be direct
revenue, but in good will, economic stimuli or just because it is the
right thing to do, but there is usually some measure for the effort
and expense.
But in the case
I'm not sure if it helps or hinders your point, but playing the
devil's advocate: both Boston Commons and the town square have a
revenue model. They both require revenue to sustain themselves (keep
the grounds clean, sponsor and host events, etc), and typically
collect that revenue not from ads,
[Death Kitten 2000: How many points are those damn kitties worth?]
I think it is a continuum and focus question. I have NEVER used any
of the networking features of Amazon or Netflix. The site's value
has very little to do with those features. For people who dig them
great! Makes a lot of sense.
Yes, thanks Bryan, that actually supports my point, and I was thinking along
those lines too. Often, keepers of online social spaces presume that because
there are costs for hosting, supporting, upgrading these spaces, they MUST
be revenue-focused, as if revenue is the deeper goal, underlying all
Hi Chris,
I don't think that ads are necessarily the answer, and focusing on
ads to the exclusion of other revenue models is a bit of a strawman.
What I think others are suggesting is that users shouldn't expect to
receive value for free.
I dislike cold showers as much as the next person. And it
On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese wrote:
What if the whole idea of a revenue model is the wrong question?
Coming in
from left field here, but does anyone ask, What is the revenue
model of the
Boston Commons? The town square?
I see.
So the $496,000,000 that has been poured
I thought Christine was speaking generically at this point. The
conversation has gone a little academic, right?
So looking specifically at FB, I do have to agree with Jared that at
this point in history (no revisionism allowed) it would seem that FB
has a heck of a big turn to make to make it all
Yah. Skype's worked out real good for eBay. And MySpace was a great
investment for Newscorp. The writeoffs they've taken were all in the plan,
right?
You're confused.
Skype shareholders didn't care about eBay, neither did MySpace shareholders
about News Corp. That's not their job. Both got
I'm a little curious about the revenue issue here.
Let's assume that Facebook really does have 80 million users plus millions
visitors without accounts. (http://is.gd/2Y6d)
These people spend lots of time creating a map of their social network,
taking tests wherein they describe their
On Sep 22, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Fredrik Matheson wrote:
In my view, Facebook is an elegant ruse. On the surface, it's a
social
utility that connects you with the people around you. Further down,
it is
more likely a machine that motivates regular people to connect,
converse and
share, and
On Sep 22, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Jared Spool wrote:
On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Christine Boese wrote:
What if the whole idea of a revenue model is the wrong question?
Coming in
from left field here, but does anyone ask, What is the revenue
model of the
Boston Commons? The town square?
I
The comment (re: revenue models) was made in the context of whether or not
Facebook - and Youtube, MySpace etc - provide value as businesses and
whether or not they're sustainable. I guess one could argue that endlessly
attracting and spending venture capital is one form of business model, but
at this point in history (no revisionism allowed) it would seem that FB
has a heck of a big turn to make to make it all come together.
FB has great network effects, low cost of production and sales, dominance in
its sector and excellent growth rate. FB has raised $300 so far and is
slated to
Kontra,
That (Facebook's internal) valuation indicates a rate of approximately
$29/user, with revenue *projections* of $2.30/user this year. Is FB revenue
neutral yet? Does that $300m cover its costs of production, operation, and
marketing? How long until the investments to-date - $496m according
On Sep 21, 2008, at 9:09 AM, David Malouf wrote:
So no one has still convinced me that FB is obsolete.
I don't think Facebook is obsolete. (I don't even know what obsolete
means in this context. Is eBay obsolete? Amazon?)
I do think that Facebook has yet to produce a meaningful business
This is where it becomes relevant to IxD, in my mind. Every time
Facebook has tried to change the design to open a space for revenue
generating functionality, the users have borked. The users have made
it clear they don't want ads in their feeds. They don't want Facebook
using them as a
Damon Dimmick wrote:
This reminds me on a few years back when Salon.com (which I admit I
don't read much except for articles by Paglia) was going down the tubes,
tried a pay-subscription based solution (which didn't work) and ended up
shifting its model.
Salon still has paid memberships, you
Would you be willing to watch similar ads at log-in time? Just curious.
-Damon
j. eric townsend wrote:
Damon Dimmick wrote:
This reminds me on a few years back when Salon.com (which I admit I
don't read much except for articles by Paglia) was going down the tubes,
tried a pay-subscription
For Facebook or Salon? I (willingly) pay for Salon as part of a
package deal, in part so I don't have to wade through ads.
For FB? I dunno. They can't even implement a model that keeps me
logged in correctly, I'm not sure I'd tolerate ads on top of that.
However, I get little value out
This is where it becomes relevant to IxD, in my mind. Every time Facebook
has tried to change the design to open a space for revenue generating
functionality, the users have borked. The users have made it clear they
don't want ads in their feeds. They don't want Facebook using them as a
sales
On Sep 21, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:
A more interesting model maybe, use the relationship as a foundation
of some service, instead of make money directly on it, like, interests
group (music experience sharing, other stuffs, ...), and it's more
solid to build some bussiness on, by
A more interesting model maybe, use the relationship as a foundation
of some service, instead of make money directly on it, like, interests
group (music experience sharing, other stuffs, ...), and it's more
solid to build some bussiness on, by which the recommend mechanism is
critical.
yes,
I think the new front page is completely brilliant. I'm less certain about
the profile page. These two pages are the heart and soul of facebook. The
homepage is more people-centric than ever, and highly engaging and
actionable. The profile page, however, seems to wrested some individual
expression
FWIW, I blogged on it some weeks ago with the intent to compare the
differences between the two. It wasn't a comprehensive review by any
means but once I saw it I felt like it needed to be done ASAP before I
got too caught up in other things like client projects. Clearly,
everyone has an opinion
Genuine question: People are saying that facebook is obsolete Why?
What supplanted it?
jeff lippiatt wrote:
Weighing in.
Facebook became obsolete a while ago. Soon to become the relic of
Yahoo, aka Geocities.
All of these sites will eventually fail unless they address something
of value.
Can't agree more on this.
I also doubt if it's really make the user's life better ( on keep
relationship, yes) from the begining.
Cheers,
-- Jarod
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:23 PM, jeff lippiatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Weighing in.
Facebook became obsolete a while ago. Soon to become the
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Damon Dimmick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Genuine question: People are saying that facebook is obsolete Why?
What supplanted it?
It's not a issue on replacement, but more on if it make people's
everyday better, for e.g., by google, you could easily searching
I think I get what you are saying, but I disagree on the idea of google
fulfilling all the needs of facebook. Sure, it can, if all your contacts
maintain a website and you fancy searching for their info, one at a
time, every time you are interested.
I'm not saying that facebook is game changing,
Hi Damon,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Damon Dimmick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I get what you are saying, but I disagree on the idea of google
fulfilling all the needs of facebook. Sure, it can, if all your contacts
maintain a website and you fancy searching for their info, one at
That's very interesting. You are right, it may be cultura. I have never
used my Myspace account, not really anyway. I resisted the myspace surge
and was always interested in orkut / friendster until I found facebook,
so perhaps there's a relative difference.
Interesting point, Jarod.
I would
The primary goal is getting concerned with the lives of others.
Listen to McLuhan opinion on global village (AKA Facebook) at 15 minutes
in this TED talk on rivalry between TV and computers.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/peter_hirshberg_on_tv_and_the_web.html
I call this primary goal
I'm sorry, but the cynicism is quite startling here. Can't it just
be as simple as 'ambient intimacy'? It's a different model than
Twitter or Plurk, but it really feels the same to me.
Further, it is feature rich in a very approachable way for people
like grandmas and uncles without the
So to step back for a moment, to think about real audiences, users,
communities, vibrant cybercultures, and how dare they presume to exist and
use tools without our benevolent blessing and permission! What nerve of
them! G How dare those cats resist our herding!
Well said Christine. People
Personally, doesn't matter.
Facebook is 15 minutes ago. Facebook is useless. Facebook just doesn't have
the decency to realize that it is Friendster 5 years ago.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:43 PM, live [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What say you, people of IXDA?
What say you of the new Facebook
Many many introductory products eventually become merely a feature of
a more purposed product they are piggybacking upon. There are
countless examples of this in technology.
My space and linkedin represent purposed social sites... they
facilitate finding new music (or being found) and building
Weighing in.
Facebook became obsolete a while ago. Soon to become the relic of
Yahoo, aka Geocities.
All of these sites will eventually fail unless they address something
of value. Currently they are all riding the plummet of social
entertainment. They have mainly ignored their core audiences:
Facebook is just now becoming relevant to a mainstream audience--something no
other social network has done before. Their traffic and membership continue to
grow at a pretty good clip. I don't have the answer for how they can monetize
their traffic, but I think moving beyond college students is
How are they relevant and how do you define mainstream? Everyone (except me)
goes there - for what purpose?
I wonder how they might monetize their eyeballs relative to others, and why
they even matter? I argue they don't, and they can't.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Barrett
[EMAIL
I think we're seeing it become more relevant as they've grown
decoupled from people being On Facebook and into other services.
I agree that apps and such are little blips in the overall picture,
but the amount of social news (and tbh, noise) I get via integrated
social networks is staggering - I
I'm in my late 30s and just signed up for Facebook. I'm also seeing many
people in my age range signing up including friends I haven't talked to in
10 years. Although it's much less relevant to my life since Scrabulous is
gone it is still a compelling site. The draw is completely related to the
So an address book?
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Patrick Barrett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
They are relevant in that they provide a platform for everyone to get and
stay connected with anyone they have ever known. I am defining mainstream as
non cutting edge (read fickle) users. By
They are relevant in that they provide a platform for everyone to get and stay
connected with anyone they have ever known. I am defining mainstream as non
cutting edge (read fickle) users. By appealing to tech laggards there is less
risk that they suffer the fate of Friendster. Inertia will
Wow. I can't believe quite a few of you are so ready to piss on
Facebook. I find it quite incredible!
Do people really hate their past relationships so much that they have
to hate everything about Facebook? I also don't see the relevance of
Geocities - I've never heard of them other than
My address book never enabled people I didn't want to remember from
high school to give
me daily updates on their political views and dog's eczema, okay?
Scott
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Will Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So an address book?
--
* It's very important to know when
I am sure that in some twisted parallel universe where there are no books to
read, ideas to explore, things to build, people to meet, Facebook is really
compelling. Really.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Scott McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My address book never enabled people I didn't
What are the top three user goals when they go onto facebook?
Super-poking? Is that a goal?
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Benjamin Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow. I can't believe quite a few of you are so ready to piss on
Facebook. I find it quite incredible!
Do people really hate
We're obviously stepping on some deep-seated stuff here, so I'll bow out.
Scott
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Will Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sure that in some twisted parallel universe where there are no books to
read, ideas to explore, things to build, people to meet, Facebook is
Yahoo's old school Geocities, is relevant because it was one of the
first pushes to have personal homepages it was supposed to be
basically what facebook is but 10 years ago, without all the apps,
widgets, social connections. It was more like Myspace in the sense
that it was a WYSIWYG editor
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
