[gilbertl]

This is such a weak post especially coming from "An Ivy League MBA." I thought business schools teach people to write essays with strong arguments.

The first few paragraphs talks about how Facebook has not and probably cannot charge its users. Google doesn't charge its users either; is Google "worthless?"

The next few paragraphs states that Facebook is not interesting anymore, claiming news feed is full of nothing but "bored office workers", "super moms", et al. First off, the author's experience is anecdotal. Second, all the "bored office workers" and "super mom" quotes - as stupid as they may sound - are parts of socializing. When we "chill out" with our friends, what do we talk about other than "man, my work sucks" or "omg, my son Jonny is learning to walk!"?

It is not that "bored office workers" and "super moms" are uninteresting; it's just that the author is either 1) independent and/or self-center or 2) has too many people on FB she doesn't care about. If it's the latter, the author should learn to "hide" uninteresting people in her stream.

Finally, the author ends the post by saying that FB's cost is rising and that it should charge $0.99/mth to "be worth something." Yet, never does the author mention 1) how much cost is rising and 2) how much FB's revenue is growing.

The details are unclear, but Facebook became cash-flow positive in 2009, and there's no signs of it slowing down.

So Facebook is worth something unless this whole "online social" thing-a-magic is really a fad. But to find out, shouldn't we ask all the "bored office workers" and the "super moms" - the people who socialize the most - rather than a business MBA who could care less about small talk?

[maukdaddy]

   I thought business schools teach people to write essays with strong arguments.

I've said it numerous times, but let me say it again. MBA schools do NOT teach people to write. Most MBAs write like shit.

Source: Me. I'm in an MBA program.

[qjz]

I think you skipped the most important statement in the article:

"Check the value of Bebo, Myspace, Friendster, etc. and you'll see the future of Facebook."

What makes Facebook any less fragile? Perhaps social networking sites are intrinsically subject to the whims of fashion.

[gilbertl]

Replace "Bebo, Myspace, Friendster" with "Altavista, Lycos, Infoseek" and we've an argument that Google has no future as a search engine.

Facebook has been less fragile because it has provided more value for its users. That they have a 500m users locking in each other is a bonus. Whether Facebook continues to thrive depends on whether they can fend off competitors.

[djacobs]

> When we "chill out" with our friends, what do we talk about other than "man, my work sucks" or "omg, my son Jonny is learning to walk!"?

If all I ever had to talk about was work sucking and kids learning to walk, I would not consider life a fun adventure and would probably not ever speak. That's what philosophy, art, literature and technology are for: intriguing, awe-inspiring, non-mind-numbing conversation. The kind Facebook is not too good at promoting.

[gilbertl]

That you spend much time in art and philosophy is great. I also spend lots of time reading books, watching TED videos, and working on side projects.

But not everyone is like that. Many parents care a lot about their children and can indeed talk about them all day. Many people also think work sucks and find it comforting to have friends who agree.

Whether you can have awe-inspiring conversations on Facebook depends on your FB friends. I've friends who frequently post tech news, political news, and other discussion-inspiring things on Facebook. I also have friends who post mind-numbing conversations online. Both are valuable to me.

[djacobs]

I hear ya.

However, I've got some fantastic friends with whom I talk medical ethics, the state of the world, our technical future, etc., almost exclusively. On Facebook, with those same friends (I constantly prune my FB friend list for real, current friends), no such conversation ever happens, even if we've (say) been on vacation away from each other for a solid week.

I've heard many many people say on FB: "This is not the place to have this debate, let's have coffee?" I'm convinced that there's no way to have a rational (but heartfelt) dialogue in the tiny, self-collapsing ("don't talk too much!") blue boxes that make up that all too superficial site.

(I mean it's called Facebook.)

[JillKennedy]

Are you serious, gilbertl? Who says FB became cash flow positive in 2009? Facebook, that's who. Demand Media also said they have always been cash flow positive and in the documents filed with the SEC for their IPO they denied ever being cash flow positive. Private company's can say whatever they want and some idiots will believe it. Some people believed what George Bush said and will argue it to the death and some people believe Obama in whatever he says. Does it make it true? Please. There is a fundamental reason FB hasn't gone public and it isn't because of all that cash flow they're producing.

[rblion]

Facebook has no soul and Mark Fuckerburg is the man who sold the world. The 2010's are set to be a time of great chaos and creation, something like the 60's. Facebook's facade will melt in this furnace. Once the shepherd is gone, the sheep will scatter. You and I both saw it coming, along with a few other outliers...