> Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable.
Facebook's IPO valuation was $75-100B, not $23B. That's a 75x-100x multiplier.
> In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting.
I'm not saying Facebook will not be able to squeeze a healthy profit in the next 5 years or or so, but I don't think they'll justify the multiplier - maybe their stock will rise in the short term, but not enough in the long run.
What I'm "seeing" is that for Facebook's future plans to work their market penetration has to maintain itself at the current levels. If Google+ or Diaspora* and whatever other competitors that join the game take even a 25% market share, then plans that require "almost everyone" to have a Facebook account (like other services that use a Facebook-only sign-on) will no longer be viable). And, of course, the next big thing will inevitably arrive. Like I said, this is a "black swan" market, and the point is that you can't exactly see what it is that will cause the decline, but investors assuming super-fast growth must also expect a decline among the successful. And, again, the question is not whether or not a company will do well, but how it will perform relative to expectations.
> Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business...
Yes, they are in business and doing well, but have already begun to disappoint the analysts. Also, Google has many products (many of them unsuccessful), and there were very few successful companies in history that continued to show good growth with only one product (oil companies, perhaps). By this time, Facebook should have had at least one more product that's showing a promise. They have none - all of their offerings are strongly tied to their social network, while Google's products (like Google Docs or GMail) are not directly tied to the success of search.
> where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora?
Diaspora* (with the asterisk) is the name of the project.
> So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up... Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?
While I indeed think that Facebook and its business model do a lot of harm to people, I'm not saying the same about the idea of virtual social networks in general. I believe that Facebook has shown that the social network to be an essential service in the internet age, so, just like e-mail, it will be commoditized, with many different vendors with different offerings and different business model, will provide social network services all compatible with one another.
> In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting.
I'm not saying Facebook will not be able to squeeze a healthy profit in the next 5 years or or so, but I don't think they'll justify the multiplier - maybe their stock will rise in the short term, but not enough in the long run.
What I'm "seeing" is that for Facebook's future plans to work their market penetration has to maintain itself at the current levels. If Google+ or Diaspora* and whatever other competitors that join the game take even a 25% market share, then plans that require "almost everyone" to have a Facebook account (like other services that use a Facebook-only sign-on) will no longer be viable). And, of course, the next big thing will inevitably arrive. Like I said, this is a "black swan" market, and the point is that you can't exactly see what it is that will cause the decline, but investors assuming super-fast growth must also expect a decline among the successful. And, again, the question is not whether or not a company will do well, but how it will perform relative to expectations.
> Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business...
Yes, they are in business and doing well, but have already begun to disappoint the analysts. Also, Google has many products (many of them unsuccessful), and there were very few successful companies in history that continued to show good growth with only one product (oil companies, perhaps). By this time, Facebook should have had at least one more product that's showing a promise. They have none - all of their offerings are strongly tied to their social network, while Google's products (like Google Docs or GMail) are not directly tied to the success of search.
> where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora?
Diaspora* (with the asterisk) is the name of the project.
> So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up... Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?
While I indeed think that Facebook and its business model do a lot of harm to people, I'm not saying the same about the idea of virtual social networks in general. I believe that Facebook has shown that the social network to be an essential service in the internet age, so, just like e-mail, it will be commoditized, with many different vendors with different offerings and different business model, will provide social network services all compatible with one another.