Facebook Faces High-Level Staff Exodus 346
angry tapir writes "It has been troubled times for Facebook since the social network's IPO in May. There has been speculation that Facebook could suffer a talent drain in the wake of the IPO, and now the organization has lost four of its high-level managers the space of a week: Ethan Beard, director of platform partnerships; Kate Mitic, platform marketing director; Jonathan Matus, mobile platform marketing manager; and Ben Blumenfeld, design manager, have all resigned from the company."
Walking wounded... (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't give a damn about Facebook (the firm). The survivors of event triggered churn (following milestone events) can be painful for the remaining staff.
Additionally this business phenomenon presents a new challenge for both inexperienced managers and leaders that have become intoxicated by constant build-grow success. Add in the additional inconvenience, ramp time, and dollar cost of finding and onboarding replacement staff, event related staff churn can have a damaging effect on the morale and productivity of the existing workforce (and impact their resumes).
The walking wounded; however, can choose to affect the situation or be affected by it. The survivors and thrivers will confront this challenge and exploit the opportunity for what it is... a chance to learn and grow.
It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
The exodus of the 14 execs won't kill FB
How many execs have left Yahoo ?
Is Yahoo still around ?
FB won't die until it runs out of cash. As long as it has cash left, it will go on, just like Yahoo
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Interesting)
How much are MySpace and Digg worth now?
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Informative)
How much are MySpace and Digg worth now?
Digg was bought a month ago for $500,000. To put things in perspective, back in 2008 it was valued at $200 Million.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Informative)
$500K was only for a portion of the company, like the domain name. The patent portfolio was sold in the 8 figure range to someone else. Digg essentially got divvied up 3 different ways, and people only quote the smaller of the transactions... Anyway, it wasn't worth anywhere near 9 figures, but let's be honest: there's been an valuation bubble going on.
Re: (Score:3)
And why not? anyone stupid enough to invest in FB deserved to lose money, whether they were a rich or poor.
Re: (Score:3)
Raising capitol, lovely spelling mistake that is very revealing of the way things work in big business :}
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Funny)
Raising capitol, lovely spelling mistake that is very revealing of the way things work in big business :}
I suppose the only solution to such intractable corruption is razing capitol.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
If AOL is still around and kicking today, it's pretty hard to believe that Yahoo will just up and die. It's important to note that Yahoo still has 10s of millions of active email users, the best fantasy sports platform on the internet, a pretty solid website in Flickr, and a bunch of other random shit. AOL has much less, yet somehow stays alive.
Agreed. Compare, however, with FB who is essentially a one-trick pony. It's a pretty amazing trick, I'll grant you that, but still...
Re: (Score:3)
If AOL is still around and kicking today, it's pretty hard to believe that Yahoo will just up and die. It's important to note that Yahoo still has 10s of millions of active email users, the best fantasy sports platform on the internet, a pretty solid website in Flickr, and a bunch of other random shit. AOL has much less, yet somehow stays alive.
AOL is only around because of all of the misinformed old folks who still can't set their VCR and also don't understand they don't need AOL to get on the internet anymore.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:4, Informative)
No. AOL is around because they own lots of popular media properties that they did not rebrand.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they hired a CEO [slashdot.org] that certainly seems to know what she's doing. That's pretty extraordinary.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:4, Interesting)
And FB will have cash until the users stop showing up.
I'm curious about how the exodus will happen. I don't see it going to G+, really. I think Diaspora died along with one of the young founders. FB copycats are a dime a dozen, but haven't heard any word in the way of compelling alternatives. Perhaps individual services will eat away at them through mobile...
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:4, Interesting)
And FB will have cash until the users stop showing up.
True, and false
True - fb will see a big drop in their income if all their users stop showing up
But that will almost never happen - due to the fact of the sheer number of users fb has gathered
Once you achieved a critical mass, like what fb has gotten itself, it'll not be that easy to topple it --- Ask yourself if Microsoft going to close its door tomorrow, that Bill Gates is no longer on the helm, and Steve Ballmer still throwing chairs around
And false - Remember fb has garnered many billions of $$, and if they do not repeat stunts like what they did in the $1 Billion acquisition of Instagram - fb will still be around for quite some time to come
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Funny)
True - fb will see a big drop in their income if all their users stop showing up
But that will almost never happen - due to the fact of the sheer number of users fb has gathered
Once you achieved a critical mass, like what fb has gotten itself, it'll not be that easy to topple it --- Ask yourself if Microsoft going to close its door tomorrow, that Bill Gates is no longer on the helm, and Steve Ballmer still throwing chairs around
This is true - all of my vague acquaintances and high school classmates who I didn't like then will always need a place to tell me what they're making for supper tonight and ... later ... tell me how it tasted and how much they love their spouse / kids / pet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
...all of my vague acquaintances and high school classmates who I didn't like then will always need a place to tell me...
I always wonder...
1. what motivates people accept friends on facebook that they don't like?
2. how different these folks are from the other 85million fake people on facebook? ("these folks" being a deliberatly vague reference)
3. why people post anything on facebook at all given #1 and #2?
1) because to not accept would be "rude" and/or the requesters try to get as many "friends" as some sort of contest or because the only purpose of the account is for some "business" purpose
2) the stats on fake (various meanings of the word fake) accounts on FB is apparently not good
3) ego stroking in some weird "look at me" way
I've posted meaningful thought provoking status updates on FB and it was like crickets chirping and tumbleweeds. I once posted "I just had some ice cream!" having actually just had so
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Funny)
Diaspora is the Linux desktop of social networking, except not actually useful or secure.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's just like every other social network?
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps people will go out and make real friends.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy is flawed
In a real life military scenario, an exodus of several general will create mass confusion and drastic drop of morale amongst the soldiers
On the other hand, in the case of fb, even if 90% of the exec decide to leave, you think that will do anything to the fb users?
Nope, zilth, nothing
Them users will still use fb to tell the world when they go to toilet, what they ate for breakfast and what they did with their gf/bf the night before, like usual
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The curious thing is why would you care so much? Are you an investor or prospective investor?
The term "used to be" suits the most, regarding investment on fb
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Interesting)
Smart folks at FB realize that hype didn't work and every step FB takes to monetize their users will alienate them. Their only ace in the hole is that there isn't yet a good FB replacement for the 2010's -- but that's why we have Stanford!
The exodus this early should be very alarming to FB.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
The exodus of high level leaders at same time, however can definitely kill a company. Think of it this way, if several generals or even majors of an army quit at the same time, it leads the army directionless for a fair bit.
However, in this analogy, Zuckerberg is a dictator. He has majority voting share and it is obvious he does what he wants. (Think Instagram, which was done by Zuckerberg before he told the board.)
When the voice at the top is the only one that gets heard, it really doesn't matter how many underlings leave, even if they are high-level.
Re: (Score:3)
However, in this analogy he's a dictator with no power to prevent people from fleeing the country. He didn't execute his generals, they abandoned him, and faced no consequences for doing so.
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
And why do people call high level execs "talent" anyway?
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
And why do people call high level execs "talent" anyway?
Dear Sir,
You have asked a pertinent question
It's a social hierarchy thingy - When you're an exec of a company as famous as fb (or M$ or Google or Apple) ppl will automatically associate you with the successes of that company
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It won't kill FB (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was foolish enough to have bought FB stock I'd be pretty panicky around now.
LOL !!
We were allotted a part of fb for something that we'd done for them
All the shares under my name (not that much, btw) got sold out the first day of the IPO
Based on my own experience (since the 1970's in the tech field) I do not see any bright future for fb
And this is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd bail too from a ship that just went over a cliff.
Re:And this is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
I especially want to bail out of the ship when the SEC is going to start sniffing around.
Re:And this is surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your expectation that the regulators exist to actually root out and punish fraud in the market is touching but quite naive, especially in light that regulators have done absolutelly nothing at all to punish market-mispractices by large companies in the last 20 years (and when they do something, the miniscule fines they impose are usually less than the profits made by the companies breaking the law).
Given the size of Facebook and that the lead bank in their IPO was Morgan Stanley, expect the SEC to do absolutelly nothing at all.
On the other hand, given that Facebook stock still has a Price-Earnings per share above 50 (the typical PE for high growth Tech companies is about 25), expect a further fall in price. A better explanation for the exodus of several high-level managers with over-bloated but meaningless titles just as they become allowed to sell their stock is that they've been holding off from leaving a drifting ship until they could get their paws on hard cash.
Re: (Score:3)
By that logic, bailing isn't going to do you much good at that point. :-P
I think you meant to say a ship heading for a cliff... ;)
Re:And this is surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, it's a derailed ship which has been driven into a ditch, is now stuck in a nosedive, and is about to go over a cliff.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
That was the plan all along. Cash out and move on. It's a shallow company with no real long term potential. People are fickle, color me surprised.
Besides... (Score:3)
So four people left... are these really surprising super high-level departures? At least in the Big Company I come from, you aren't considered any kind of "executive" unless you have some kind of "* Vice President" or "C*" in your title. "Director" or "Manager" may mean you're actually doing important work, but is nobody's idea of an "executive."
Maybe Facebook is very different, though...
Re: (Score:2)
"At least in the Big Company I come from, you aren't considered any kind of "executive" unless you have some kind of "* Vice President" or "C*" in your title."
So does being a "C/C#/C++ Programmer" make you some kind of big shot?
Re:Besides... (Score:5, Funny)
So does being a "C/C#/C++ Programmer" make you some kind of big shot?
By virtue of having three consecutive alphanumeric Cs in your job title, you would outrank everyone else in the company. Unless of course they hired a CCCCEO.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Where CJT stands for "CJT is my Job's Title" which by virtue of its recursivity propelled me at the highest possible rank of finite and infinite job's ranks of the universe
But I just left the company last year and am now in a new even cooler startup with transfinite job titles, I am slowly working my way to the top, it's a long way but it's worth it
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
High level exec would have known of the coming IPO. Most of those who planned to leave have probably delayed their departure until after the IPO.
In other sectors it is common to have departure at all levels after the bonus, not really because they think that the bonus sucks, just because "you don't quit before bonus time". That is not really a proof of anything at all.
Re: (Score:3)
From a purely self-interest perspective, what these managers are doing by leaving now is actually the smartest decision they could make.
The stock price has probably got further down to go. Depending on their stock options they'd actually stand to lose money by staying don't they?
That makes no sense. How do they lose money by staying at Facebook? Why can't they cash in their stock options and still continue to work at Facebook?
The fact that people are leaving usually indicates that it's a shitty place to work and/or they see no future for themselves or for the company.
Re: (Score:3)
Stock options will have a vesting period to keep people attached, where if they leave before a certain point they won't get them and so on. Because of the way facebook managed to delay its IPO for so long I suspect a lot of people are starting to run out of their options vesting period, and more will in the next year or two.
The fact that people are leaving usually indicates that it's a shitty place to work and/or they see no future for themselves or for the company
Not true at all. Especially when you're talking about the facebook pay bracket. A lot of these people (especially top executives) will have been making a few hundred thousand a year,
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Another reason for mass executive exodus is so they CAN have more opportunities in the future. Its good not to be there at the end game. These guys want to go on to be C?Os or board members elsewhere, to do that they need to be able to maintain the fiction things were fine at Facebook when they left. The don't want to be on the list of people who ran it into the ground.
Naturally most normal people can see thru this, but star-y eye'd near do wells, in their desperate greed will toss tons of money at these people in hopes of getting their own Zukerburg like pay out. Of course it won't work out but that has never stopped anyone on either side of the equation.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
This. It's called being short against the box [briefing.com], and while it cannot be (easily) used to defer or reduce taxes, it's a perfectly legal hedge against long stock.
The lockup period prevents you from selling the stock the day the company goes public. Company policy prevents you from going short. (I suppose you could argue that being short against the box is a market-neutral position, but your company's policy may prohibit you from doing so as a condition of employment).
So you have a stock in which you want to preserve your IPO-day gains, but you can't sell it, and you can't go short against the box and still keep your job. If the stock's high enough (and with the $FB IPO, we could be talking "Fuck You Money [metafilter.com]" here), a valid strategy to preserve those gains is to quit your job, go short against the box for 3-6 months until the lockup expires, and liquidate both sides of the trade.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They would not lose money.
[...]
The old options will not be out of money for a while still.
So cash out now or wait while their options continue to lose value? They chose to leave now. And holding out until the options are underwater doesn't sound even remotely like a good move to me.
Do we really care? (Score:2, Funny)
Do we really care?
What's this FaceBook thing anyway?
Does it compile into native code or P-code?
If you put facebook through a compiler ... (Score:2, Funny)
... the outcome is a bunch of soiled butt-papers
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do we really care? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it compiles toa single 1.5GB C++ binary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HipHop_for_PHP [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Technical_aspects [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do we really care? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we really care?
What's this FaceBook thing anyway?
Does it compile into native code or P-code?
Fun fact: FaceBook uses HipHop [facebook.com], a tool they developed themselves to convert PHP code to C++, and then compile it to native code.
And the craziest thing is that they compile everything into a single 1.5 GB binary [arstechnica.com]:
So, yeah, FaceBook compiles to native code! :-)
When the avalanche has started (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eventually the shareholders will hold the board's feet to the fire
False.
Even though he owns a small number of shares, Zuckerberg owns a large majority of the voting shares. He has complete control of the company.
Many other companies have a dual-class share structure allowing a small minority to retain control with a small financial stake. Generally speaking, it sucks, and companies with this kind of share structure don't tend to do very well. Don't buy their stock.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, do you know many examples of other such companies, which we would have heard of?
Re: (Score:3)
Murdoch's News Corp (he owns 12% of shares but controls 40% of voting), Google (the founds control more than 50% of voting thanks to owning shares that give them 10 votes each), LinkedIn, Zynga and Groupon.
http://www.economist.com/node/18988938 [economist.com]
Re:When the avalanche has started (Score:5, Informative)
Eventually the shareholders will hold the board's feet to the fire
How will they do that? Zuckerberg outvotes them all, thanks to the dual-class stock structure.
Re:When the avalanche has started (Score:5, Informative)
Can I just say "dear Mark; Class; you make Billy boy Gates look like a choir boy. Make sure you have some good lawyers".
How the hell does he get away with that.
It's an old, and fairly common, way of setting up the voting structure of media companies. By "old", I mean 100+ years. The theory, in the case of the newspaper companies where it started, is that the company needs "editorial freedom". You wouldn't want a newspaper to be told what news to print by its biggest shareholders, so a stock voting structure that leaves control of the paper in the hands of some people who are considered to be trustworthy is a good idea.
In the context of tech companies, Google pioneered the use of the dual-class structure, as far as I know. It's possible Google wasn't really the first, but they were the first to make a big splash doing it. Part of Google's argument was that it was important that search results also have editorial freedom, that Google not be in a position to be forced by big shareholders to remove or bury search results that they don't like, or promote results they do like. Even more, Google argued that being beholden to shareholders was bad for fast-moving companies, because it forced them to focus on short-term profitability to the exclusion of all else. Google's founders wanted the freedom to ignore short-term profitability where they thought it was more important to focus on the long term, or even to focus on other issues entirely. So, for those reasons Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt have a controlling interest in Google, able to collectively outvote the rest of the shareholders combined.
In fact, they recently recognized that employee stock grants and some future desire to raise more capital by offering more stock on the public markets might at some point dilute their ownership, so they have announced a plan to do a two-for-one split, essentially, with all of the newly-created shares being non-voting. This third class of stock, which has no votes at all, will be used rather than the common one-vote-per-share stock for employee bonuses and possibly for additional public offerings. There are also some provisions in the agreement that require the founders to sell their 10-vote shares rather than others if they want to sell any stock (though the shares convert to one-vote shares when sold), in order to motivate them to retain their ownership stake if they want to retain their control. I don't know if the SEC has signed off on the plan or not, yet, but it's unlikely to be denied. Of course, the change had to pass a shareholder vote, but Larry, Sergey and Eric outvote the rest of the shareholders combined, so that was no problem.
After Google did it, many other web-focused technology companies have adopted dual-class voting structures in their IPOs, and Facebook followed suit.
So, no lawyers will be necessary. Or not for very long, anyway. The legality of this structure has been firmly established for many decades. The bottom line is that shareholders knew all of this when they decided to buy in, so the shareholders have already signed off on the structure.
Re: (Score:3)
The current management team may not be the people to monetize the company.
If anything's going to kill Facebook, it will be decisions made by people who were only hired to make money. People who have no interest in what it's for, never will have interest, and are only there to monetize.
Facebook will have to be very, very careful to make sure the user experience doesn't completely vaporize in the face of money-mongers. But I think if they were planning to be that careful, they probably would not have gone public.
Rats deserting a stinking ship... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've often heard the term, "where there is smoke there is fire".
This makes me wonder if there was something strange going on with the IPO. A lot of pissed off people who lost a lot of money. One one hand I can't feel sorry for people that lost money since anybody with a brain could figure out Facebook was not worth that much. On the other hand, if there were any shenanigans, I don't think people at Facebook should get away with it.
It is pretty strange to see that much high level "talent" leave. Suspicious is another word.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me wonder if there was something strange going on with the IPO.
There was something strange, it IPO'd for much more than the company is worth. Managers see that their stock isn't going to appreciate, and go somewhere better. Now the company needs to pay its employees in cash, a lot of it, or lose them, like Yahoo did.
Is there something else 'strange' and illegal? Maybe, but why stoop to the illegal level when you can rip people off like that legally?
Re: (Score:3)
I've worked many jobs that have given me "stock options" and the company is public so you might as well burn them.
If you think stock options are worthless because the company is public, uh, that might be your problem. Those can be the most valuable stock options, because they're almost guaranteed to be worth something. And sometimes companies give you a LOT of options to make up for the fact that they aren't growing anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. If you really want to get to the pot of gold, you have to start your own business. Working for someone else will never get you far. (Of course, starting your own company is also a giant gamble, as most companies fail, so there's no free lunch here either.)
Of course, there are those who supposedly work for someone else, but they really work for themselves, as they're independent contractors; they can also do quite well.
Re:Rats deserting a stinking ship... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you can make about 75K from someone else you can do quite well for yourself. Manage your money. That's the key to pretty much the entirety of being successful.
My dad made 74k a year on a team of guys who all made 74k a year (this was about a decade ago). Some of them bought boats, some cottages, some had expensive wives etc. The ones who bought stuff with resale value (the cottages for example, or mutual funds and bonds) are all doing fine in retirement, they can afford holidays, etc. The ones who bought boats, and planes (and god help them, both), the ones who landed wives with expensive tastes in things that are worth nothing, they're struggling now.
Working for someone else does have significant advantages, pension plans, fixed hours that sort of thing. When you work for yourself you can very easily slide into working 12 hours a day and not having vacation time, and still not making very much money. And if you get sick, your whole business can fall apart, and you might not have customers to go back to as they've found someone else.
Ultimately, it's up to you to manage your money, if you can do that you can manage your business or you can manage your paycheque. Working for yourself is always better than a bad boss, and working for yourself *can* be better than a good boss, but not always.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as you can make about 75K from someone else you can do quite well for yourself.
Meanwhile, median household income in the US is around $50K. Over half the people in this country cannot do well for themselves. This is despite the fact that US workers have the highest productivity of any country besides Norway.
Managing your money and working hard is important. But when the country you live in just doesn't give you a fair deal, it's not enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice try, but wages haven't really correlated with productivity [huffingtonpost.com] in decades. There is something terribly wrong with the US economy. It's not enough for us to pull our own weight, we have to pull the weight of the idle rich AND make them even richer.
we all tried to do it (Score:5, Funny)
Wha? (Score:5, Funny)
Frankly, I saw this coming (Score:2)
Re:Frankly, I saw this coming (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to think that, but lately it seems like Facebook has become what I used to use email for. I use Facebook to send messages to friends and also coordinate events with them. And my actual email is mostly spam.
Re:Frankly, I saw this coming (Score:5, Interesting)
My sister tried that - once.
I don't have a facebook account and refused to get one.
The whole platform falls on its face as an event organization platform if even one key person refuses to sign up to having their personal lives data mined.
Re:Frankly, I saw this coming (Score:4, Interesting)
That is actually the initial trigger to drive the popularity of other newer social networks. Each time a person tries to coordinate via a social network, only to get refusal and rejection with the recommendation of an alternate network, that person is motivated to try the alternate network and if they get enjoy the new network try to shift their other friends to it, 'using the old social network'. Fascinating isn't the old fad social network actually accelerates it's demise but facilitating the mass transfer of people to the new fad social network.
Facebook has got on the nose, seen as being old and now flooded with wanna be, has been teens, still trying to hang onto their youth. This seems to be the ultimate killer of social networks, the ageing of their users and users seeking to escape unappealing contacts for what ever reason.
Re:Frankly, I saw this coming (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole platform falls on its face as an event organization platform if even one key person refuses to sign up to having their personal lives data mined.
The event was doomed to fail anyway, if the organizers can't figure out how to keep one "hold-out" (for lack of a better word) in the loop through other means.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct call but you don't need to be a genius to work that out.
All business have a finite life and well predicted cycle - just some are on cycle measured in by centuries (eg Encyclopædia Britannica, Kodak, NY Times) while others are measured in years or decades.
Only question is not whether Facebook will decline but how much it can cash-in before that happens which is really dictated the length of decline itself - market valuations are more in line strong growth and a life of AT LEAST 10-20 years while
not hard to work out why (Score:2, Flamebait)
Facebook is SHIT on phones and iPads. I hear quite a few people use those these days.
Surprise! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The most amazing thing about this whole sad saga is that not one single person foresaw Facebooks IPO problems. Not one I tells ya!
Really? Were you even reading the financial news?
Who's Zuckerberg's alter ego? (Score:5, Funny)
Facebook's biggest problem as a young company is Zuckerberg has never had a corporate alter ego. The most prominent of the newer information companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google were started by partners such as Steve Jobs/Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates/Paul Allen, and Larry Page/Sergey Brin. Like a vanishing twin, one of the partners might eventually leave the company, but in their early histories, none of these companies was dominated by a single alpha-geek but by a Batman and Robin or Laurel and Hardy dynamic duo.
Re:Who's Zuckerberg's alter ego? (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they lost both Professor X and Cyclops and have had to make due with Matter Eater Lad for the past decade.
What's new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every tech company is losing staff, because none are willing to hire junior-level workers and train them. So companies keep competing over the same fixed number of people. And the quickest way to get a raise is to jump ship. So there you have it.
It's not just tech, either. There are lots of college-educated bartenders these days, because every "entry level" position requires 3 years of experience. It's absurd.
And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Insightful)
director of platform partnerships
platform marketing director
mobile platform marketing manager
design manager
Sorry, but those mostly sound like made up bullshit job titles.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but those mostly sound like made up bullshit job titles.
Then you know nothing about the software business. The Facebook platform is a well designed interface that attracted a lot of corporate attention to Facebook. Go on and read up on it [wikipedia.org]. It was one of the most successful things Facebook did and, it's where Google's attempts at social network failed. From what I can tell, the design manager, platform marketing director and director of platform partnerships must have made a really good job.
And now these people are moving on...
Of course. Lockup just ended. (Score:5, Informative)
Much employee-owned stock couldn't be sold until the first lockup period ended. Which it just did. [bloomberg.com] So, given Facebook's declining stock price, it's time to cash out. Of course they're quitting. Facebook is profitable, but the stock is overpriced by an order of magnitude or so.
Lockups are far shorter than they used to be. When I cashed out of Autodesk in the 1980s, insiders had a 2-year lockup on restricted stock. And you had to pay taxes when you exercised an option, even though you couldn't sell for another two years. That was before "deregulation", and kept insiders from cashing out before the company tanked. Now it's 90 to 277 days. This encourages hyping the stock, taking the money, and running.
Good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the design manager was the one who has made some of the UI decisions for Facebook over the last year or two maybe it's best he departs. Facebook is convenient for me for keeping in touch with a lot of people I know but I haven't heard anyone say anything good about their user interface design in a very long time. I don't really have any ill will towards anyone at Facebook (I have a number of friends who work there) but perhaps this is a good thing.
This might be for the best (Score:5, Insightful)
If this exodus can delay or reverse the forced conversion to that gawd-awful "Timeline", then it's all to the good.
Of course they're leaving. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me explain how this works (having gone through an IPO at a company where I worked years ago):
1) founders of company want to generate some cash.
2) founders hire a bunch of execs and engineers promising the company will go public and everyone wiil get options at pre IPO price.
3) dopes take the jobs.
4) company goes public, stock price soars, people start dreaming about what they will do with their newly minted wealth.
5) reality sets in- founders are the only ones able to exercise their options, everyone else has to wait to be vested in 5 years.
6) founders sell off their stock, generating the cash they sought, leave everyone else twisting in the wind.
7) Now-wiser execs realize their options won't ever be worth anything and jump off the sinking ship while they can.
It has been done so many times you'd think people would be wise to this scam by now, but it keeps working over and over.
employees can start selling their stock Thursday (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing an investor have to do is make sure they put their money where it will grow. The facebook IPO was a complete and utter joke (feel free to review my past comments). If Joe wants to make it's placement itself, he bears the risk. If a financial advisor told Joe to invest in Facebook, he should be sacked prompy, head first. Simple as that.
Dont want risk? Invest in primary industries that MAKE STUFF people NEED. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
hmmmm... What investor invests in something they know nothing about? If they had paid just the scantest of attention, they never would have invested in FB. I am not knocking FB, I am mocking the 'investor'. All of the issues that the press screamed about after the IPO were discussed prior to the IPO. These are the same people that would have invested in tulip bulbs in the 1600s.
What idiot invested in mortgages after 2005? "No income verification! No money down!" Say what? Or derivatives?
And how abou
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of agree, and it's good to hear at least one decenter from the crowd. I also don't really like facebook, and scorn it for my own personal reasons. But, I do see where people are always going to be looking for ways to connect. FB did that pretty well at one point. (Myspace did it for a while, and before them yahoo, etc, in different ways.)
I think the problem with FB, now, is they're either too greedy or too big. It might be a case where several, smaller FB-like organizations, ran privately, would do t
Re:Love fb (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you are trolling.
I love facebook. It's an awesome idea. It'll survive and thrive.
I despise facebook. Its got potential as a concept. Social networks will survive and thrive -- but hopefully facebook will crash and burn to be replaced by something good.
Get some fresh minds working on more cool shit.
If your entire platform is the shit that is privacy invasion and advertising no matter what you build on it, it will eventually sink into that shit. Start over. Do it differently.
Facebook has changed all our lives whether you want to admit it or not.
It actually has had virtually zero impact on mine; but then I declined to get an account.
The sum total of its impact on me is that i see little blue "f" icons on a bunch of stuff that i ignore, and companies jibber about their facebook pages instead of their websites now. I don't visit their fb pages... and nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't changed my life one bit, its just another in a long series of popular communities, they run for a while, crap out and get replaced while some child claimed they changed humanity
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Love fb (Score:4, Interesting)
Well considering how many people use FB, I guess in your mind most of the adult population is "feeble-minded". Arrogant much?
FB is a pretty smart idea; only a fool would say otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that FB is the greatest possible implementation of that idea. It has a lot of problems; the biggest problem is that of monetization. Sure, it's kinda cool to have some big online meeting place to find all your friends and post dumb pictures and links and chit-chat about it all, but someone's gotta pay the bills to keep it all running, and people posting silly comments about cat pictures and pictures of their kids isn't exactly a big money-maker, and people tend to get turned off by too much advertising, so while that can be used to bring in revenue, if you overdo it, it'll backfire, plus it's not hard for people to block ads with things like ABP, making advertising even less valuable.
The other problem I see is that FB just isn't that well done. For instance, suppose I want to look up someone I knew way back in high school to see what he or she is up to these days. If they have an uncommon name, no problem, just search for that name and they'll pop up if they have a FB account. But what if their name is John or Julie Smith? Good luck finding the person you're looking for there. Now, you'd think that you could just narrow it down with some keywords or something (e.g. school names they've attended, towns or states they've lived in, etc.); but no, the FB people aren't smart enough to implement that apparently.
Re:Love fb (Score:5, Interesting)