Facebook Expected To Go Public Next Week 192
First time accepted submitter foozie writes "Many credible sources, including Forbes and CBS, say that Facebook will finally IPO next week, raising about $10 billion and valuating at $75 billion, almost three times the valuation of Google at the point of their IPO in 2004. This shift raises questions about how the new ownership will affect the company's ability to innovate and remain on the forefront of social media."
Innovate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Innovate? I think we're already past that with Facebook, no?
If you're looking for innovation, personally, I'd look elsewhere -- Way past the social-network situation that we see graying at a rapid rate.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This shift raises questions about how the new ownership will affect the company's ability to innovate and remain on the forefront of social media
Yes, that's exactly what I thought. Well, actually what I thought was 'I wonder how much money the investors in the Goldman Sachs Facebook fund will make out of this bubble,' but your version sounds better.
"company's ability to innovate"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when has Facebook innovated since its creation?
shifting around the GUI elements every few months is NOT innovation.
Given Goldman Sachs' non-public/non-US offerings.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This just sounds like a cashout opportunity with the IPO folks holding the bag.
Re:"company's ability to innovate"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"company's ability to innovate"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Innovation in social networks will involve the shifting from company held servers to a distrusted social network via IPv6 and router/modem/firewall/web server/mail server/file server in the residential environment
The social network company providing the links between like minded people, backups and redundant services for blackouts.
So greater personal control and privacy, with access to your files from your hardware and shared access that you specifically have control over.
As Facebook aren't into hardware or software they are screwed. This is a battle between Google, Apple and M$. Then new distributed social network portal who gain the lead first.
Re:Facebook Innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
They created a social network that, for some reason, people tought was better than the alternatives. That is called inovation.
Now, you can say they stopped inovating. As a consequence, they must have also stopped improving.
yeah other than food, energy, transportation, (Score:5, Insightful)
and everything that the lives of ordinary people depend on, there has been no inflation.
oh wait, maybe the modern 'science' of economics is a gigantic pile of horse shit? maybe 'inflation' is a political number manipulated by assholes at the Fed in order to support various fucked up ideologies, policies that benefit the already rich, and whichever corrupt bribery machine happens to be in power at the moment?
Re:Facebook Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone please remind me ... (Score:3, Insightful)
They sell ads. And it looks like their ad revenues has some space to grow.
I'd be more concerned about how they intend to keep their ever moving customers from moving to the next big thing once it appears on the horizon.
Re:Facebook Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Facebook Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
wha? open source isn't even a question, nor is it related to the situation.
The answer is: facebook didn't innovate at all, they simply had the most popular site by method of exclusivity before they went public. That's it.
that's not "wow! amazing!", it's more a stroke of luck. Their dealings with zynga and microsoft (who surely is positioned to profit from the IPO) highlight that facebook otherwise has no idea what they're doing aside from trying to sell every user's information in every way possible.
Re:Innovate? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe live journal, MySpace, geocities, tripod, etc all beat Facebook to your so called innovating by providing people with their own "web page".
Please try again
Re:Where's the numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who bought those Goldman Sachs shares?
This is private information, so won't be disclosed. The public filing will just say that GS owns 10% (or whatever) of the company. The people who own the shares in the fund do not have to be disclosed.
Who at the SEC decided that these 'non-shares' that Goldman's wanted to sell were garbage enough not to be sold in the USA, but somehow could be sold outside the USA?
My understanding is that nobody did. Someone at GS decided that not selling them in the USA let them avoid the need to bother with SEC approval.
So will this shadowy group of Goldman's customers now manipulate the IPO?
Possibly, although I suspect that the IPO means that GS has decided that the bubble is now over. They hyped the shares, sold them to their preferred customers (at a big profit) hyped them some more, got their customers to sell them to other people, and now they have no further interest in Facebook. It can go public, people can review its books, and it could file for chapter 11 next week for all GS cares. They've moved onto the next bubble.
Re:Facebook Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
You pretty much summed it up. I fear that Facebook is a one-trick pony. "And now, for our next act... uh... hm... where's that card..." What more can they realistically do, other than poach internet services from competitors like Google?
Facebook messaging is encroaching on email turf, but I doubt it will ever replace an independent email service; no one trusts them, and it's unrealistic to force all your email recipients to join Facebook; this was AOL's downfall as well.
The comparisons with AOL are accurate and portend future trouble for Facebook. The broader, out-of-control Internet has a way of bypassing closed systems with ever more flexible and innovative alternatives.
Sooner or later, someone will think of something even easier and more convenient to use than FB, and FB will begin to lose its relevance. I have no idea what; it could be some sort of mobile-to-mobile chat and messaging paradigm that bypasses the website-based interfaces like FB's, or maybe a return to basics because of social network fatigue.
Personally, I've grown tired of FB after using it somewhat extensively for a year or two. It's been a great way to get back in touch with old classmates and the like, but the novelty's worn off and I now find it tiresome to sit down at a computer, bring up facebook.com, and read some oh-so-clever status messages from people who should be working or reading or (God forbid) exercising :)
IPO of Net ventures (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sucker game, actually
Back in the 1980's when Al Gore proclaimed the "Information Super Highway" there had been more hype than everything else combined
There were so many example of Net venture wasted all the money being pumped into them, and yet, the financial world never learn
Take search engines for example
The was Altavista, and people was like goo-goo and gaa-gaa all over it
Then Yahoo came along, and the goo-goo gaa-gaa people flocked to it
When Google arrived, Yahoo withered
Take "community", for example
There was "The-Well", AOL, tripod, whathaveyous
How many of them are still left, today?
How many BILLIONS have they wasted?
I do not have a crystal ball, but I can tell you that FB will be just like any of the above-mentioned, and the billions pumped into it would be wasted
I can't remember how much $$$
Re:IPO of Net ventures (Score:5, Insightful)
There were so many example of Net venture wasted all the money being pumped into them, and yet, the financial world never learn
In this case it's even worse. Think about it: What's the point of an IPO? It's so that a company can raise money, to fund expansion or revitalize the company.
So, does Facebook need money to expand? No, they're undoubtedly sitting on a mountain of cash already. They're not a little company that needs capital to expand, and they're not a big company with aging plant and equipment that needs a capital infusion to get with the times.
The reason for the IPO is obviously so that the existing owners can cash out.
Re:Innovate? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what the GP defines as innovation, but change certainly isn't inherently innovative. You can make a lot changes that make an interface worse... like the timeline, which on investigation appears to me to be a jumbled mess with no real thought put into its layout.
Re:IPO of Net ventures (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing an important one, and the one that eventually caught up to microsoft. If you're using stock options as a form of compensation you eventually have to go public, because the company cannot have more than some number of shareholders and be considered private.
Facebook may need to expand, a lot. Who knows what their plan is? They may need a massive infrastructure investment to support higher bandwidth in system applications (videos, 3d games, who knows), and they may need a massive investment to hire a large number of staff to start running revenue generating activities, along with a building full of lawyers to go with it all (advertising sales teams mostly). If they're serious about making facebook into a platform rather than just a webpage there's a lot of time and money that could be thrown into basically writing a giant web OS.
But Facebook faces a lot of fundamental problems. First off, if they have a billion users a 75 billion dollar IP values each user at 75 dollars. That's... absurd (admittedly, not 75/year, but even at 7.5/year you're pushing your luck, that requires a lot of suckers giving you 75/year for each user who contributes nothing). Right now they sell facebook points, which is all well and good, but 3rd parties take I think 70% of that. So again, you need to be moving a LOT of money per user.
So how else do you get money? Well advertising. And again, what is a user worth on facebook to an advertiser? My Facebook experience is going to be different than in the US, because they feed different ads to canada, but right now the ads they feed me are for very sketchy (not necessarily illegal, just not really serious big businesses). Valuing a facebook user might be like trying to value television viewers, but 10x harder.
Or you can sell your data to companies. Which is where this whole thing starts to fall apart fast. Facebook is now big enough that they're going to get buried in Laws from every country in the world (see the Twitter story that just got to the front page for another example). Some of those rules are going to be 'no selling data, anonymized or not, without explicit consent' and suddenly your whole revenue stream is first a legal quagmire, and second very very limited. And laws may be written about targeted ads (see previous paragraph), ads to under 13's and compliance...
So yes, the existing owners want to cash out, and I'm sure a lot of them are looking to jump ship ASAP. But google started as just a search engine, and now they have more products than I can keep track of and billions in revenue (and profits), so you never know. I would not be surprised if Facebook has a lot of thought going into what their future will look like and the manpower and infrastructure to support that gets expensive fast (when you're funded by private capital anyway).
Re:IPO of Net ventures (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IPO of Net ventures (Score:5, Insightful)
But Facebook faces a lot of fundamental problems. First off, if they have a billion users a 75 billion dollar IP values each user at 75 dollars. That's... absurd
Actually, that seems pretty low to me. If Facebook can't harvest information worth $7.50 to advertisers, political parties, and so on from each user then I'd be very surprised.
In the last US Presidential election, Obama spent $7.39 per vote, McCain spent $5.78 per vote (as with every other recent US election, the candidate who spent the most won). In most elections, around 80% of the voting population has already decided to vote for either the red team or the blue team and will always vote for their favourite colour. In winner-takes-all states, the effect of getting a few tens of thousand of undecideds to vote for your team means that you win the election. Facebook has enough information to make a mostly accurate list of who these undecided people are and where they live. How much do you think that information is worth? I bet either party would pay $10/name for it, maybe more if you promised not to sell it to the other party.
Now, of course, not every person in Facebook will be on that list - probably only a few million - but that's just one example. How about the list of people who own cars and are bad at arithmetic? That would be very valuable to a lot of insurance companies...