Apple says Steve Jobs feeling a little under the weather recently - Page 6

The problem with sites like MySpace or Facebook, is that they got so damned cluttered, and at least Facebook is trying to reverse the trend, by relegating apps to another page. MySpace is still awful though, even with a fast Comcast broadband connection, loading a typical MS page kills just about any browser/computer I'm on - Safari/IE/Opera/FF, doesn't matter.

I've never been that big into personal blogs, but FB is cool to keep in touch with friends from HS and my various colleges. I'm more into having a site to post pictures however, and I like Picasa a lot for that.

I use Facebook for the reasons you describe.

MySpace is great example why having almost no controls makes for a very poor experience when they get abused.

Don't be so moronically pedantic, you know exactly what I meant and it makes perfect sense. The issue of the online social networking apps being in the midst of building lash-back has nothing to do with the social nature of cave men or modern water-cooler discussions.

OK, you go offer to buy shares of Facebook at its $15B valuation then. Be my guest.

I've found no evidence of such a "lashback" that you suggest that diminishes either site. I think Comscore showed Facebook having doubled to tripled their pageviews in the last year. Myspace has a modest growth, no reduction.

I don't watch their stock, it may well be overvalued, but I see no such downward trend in actual use.

Edit: there is no publicly available stock for Facebook that I can find.

It has everything to do with your statement. The only way social networking websites are a fad are if the internet is a fad. It's ingrained in our core nature to connect with others so if the internet stays then so these type sites.

Myspace, Facebook and it's ilk aren't the be-all end-all of human networking. They are just quick-flash implementations in the grand scheme of humanity. True socialization will be here long after their hollow shells are recognized by all. Your statement is just fatal straw-man over simplification.


There isn't any publically available stock (Facebook) [Myspace is owned By NewsCorp so no dedicated stock there either-but the earlier post's comment was about Facebook]. Facebook has been utterly unable to get anyone other than Microsoft to pony up any $$. As in they can't even get an investment banker to do an IPO because growth is far below what they predicted when they unilaterally valued the company at $15B. It's just not very valuable as a business which is a far better indication than page-hit snapshots.

In the internet market of non-charging sites which hope to get advertising and tie-in financial flows, non-accelerating page view and viewer growth IS negative growth when considered for future earnings. Raw numbers of viewers alone isn't very valuable to look at, everything interesting is trend and that trend HAS to accelerate strongly to a point where the miniscule per view incremental income can add up to large enough numbers to turn into positive income.

Google beat that curve and success on the low side is measured at high hundreds of millions of views per-day. How does Myspace get advertising revenue?? Google! You can't get rich paying to play and only keeping crumbs from each cookie! When was that move made? After News Corp bought them out. Growth has significantly flattened and the corporation wants to bleed less red.

Will Facebook and Myspace vanish? Probably not. But will they become insignificant over the next few years, count on it. The next maxi-social fad is about 5 years away given how big meme trends go and current versions of social networking will be barely warmed over yesterday's hash by then.

The lack of an IPO says little. There haven't been a whole lot of IPOs period in the last few years.


FB is still growing massively, Myspace hasn't retracted yet. Both are top 40 sites on the internet. I doubt pulling in advertisers is going to be a problem. Stock considerations don't make an argument as to whether they have longevity.

I guess you are ignoring the concept of prediction markets. Fine, no skin of my back.

How about enlightening us all.

Funny, I stated that Facebook and Myspace will probably be left behind when another social networking concept sites comes along with a slightly better idea, but when I say it you call my argument a sham and oddly imply that I setup my argument to be easily defeated (which makes no sense).

Your initial stance on this was that social networking websites* are a fad and now it's Facebook and MySpace are a fad. That is a completely different stance from the original.

There is no telling which if these sites will make it through. Apple was slated to evaporate a decade ago so it's possible that with the right management and plan that a site can survive. With Rupert buying MySpace for its demographic data(?) and Facebook's new found popularity as an open-to-all, mature social networking site it's possible that at least one of these will still be popular a decade from now. If I had to guess, I'd say that Facebook is more likely to succeed because of its use of advanced code and use among people are seem to be trying to stay connected over MySpace's gaudy setup that seems more geared for people trying to impress.

If you really think these will will shortly AND actually think now that another will take its place you should be working on a concept for the next one. It's only one idea away from being rich. They will probably never compete with the big tech companies like Google, Apple, eBAy and Amazon but there is plenty of money to be made. I even read one story of a girl in HS who would make MySapce sites for people for free but include Google AdSense in the code as compensation and was making millions per year from this.



* Giving you the benefit of the doubt

The problem here is that you changed your arguments mid stream at least once. I asked you to provide substance to your claim that suggested the two sites in question are in a state of decline, which I pointed out wasn't true, then you say that's not the important argument.

Then you suggest I buy stock, which wasn't really available anyway.

All this is a pretty fishy way of making an argument.

Dude, you are getting all worked up about something I didn't even comment on! I commented on your first paragraph in the post you are talking about. I explicitly quoted ONLY it, not the other part you are so strenuously justifying and trying to imagine that I said anything about. No use in quoting it again- anyone else just needs to look up and see the fact I didn't even disagree with what you are trying to say I dismissed.

Jeez if you can't even read the post you are trying to respond to, but project ill intent and dissension that isn't even there, it's awful damn hard to have a reasonable discussion. Also remember you aren't the only one posting that I am responding to, I quote what I respond to. I don't quote what I don't disagree with [which doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it, I just don't find it disagreeable].


Not really, social networking has been roughly equated in society with Myspace, Facebook, Linked In... The fact people network socially, did so before and will in the future is separate from the fact that these commonly cited apps ARE what the vast majority of people mean when they say social networking. If you quit trying to enforce some ill-fitting strict logical parse on natural language it will be far easier to go forward.

And yes, I'm not quoting the rest because I don't need to, we are actually in rough agreement there. I'm not the kind of guy who would come up with something cool enough to catch on like that, leave that to others with the appropriate flair. I'm working long term on something else which may hopefully enable something just as pervasive but in a much different manner. Yes it's a pipe dream, but why not...

I did, you just don't like my metrics. Nothing fishy or switchy there, just man-up and agree to disagree.

And the stock buying comment had a point to it which is still VERY valid. What that important point is is left to the reader to discern. It is there though, I promise.

Huh? Are you living in the future?

You did not cite any metrics at all that showed that the two sites are already declining. It's not about disagreeing, it's about presenting facts that back up the original statement. What you presented were hand-waving arguments at best to distract from the missing facts.

I called you on that statement, then it looked to me that you switched to saying that that the sites will be declining. Two different things because the tense is different. I do agree that the general thing about web sites are that they eventually decline and diminish, but it's not a guaranteed thing even if it is a long shot to buck those odds. But my point is there's just no evidence of a current decline that I've seen yet. And it looks like you haven't either and you just used perceptions and not facts to make that original statement.

The article says this photo was taken Monday. But this photo has been around since 2008 (although in fairness it may have been taken ON a Monday!)

See it used here:
Cult of Mac blog

SME Magazine article

Fox News

Erm, it's hardly surprising if the photo's old, you've dug this thread up from 2008!

Be... cause the thread's from aught eight.

You sure do make the most of your 2 posts a year!

Interestingly, it's June 2011, and Steve at WWDC looks almost as thin as at his very thinnest point in his life, his voice was weak and he was walking a bit funny.

Seriously, I remain quite concerned about his health, and wish him the best.