• Facebook share price continues to plummet, now below $29; rival site abandons IPO plans
    49 replies, posted
[QUOTE=King Tiger;36128020]Television isn't a company. What are you trying to say?[/QUOTE] But television is a profitable industry. Also radio is still profitable, even though it makes no product.
no single company runs radio and tv though
[QUOTE=Sharkcheater;36128064]no single company runs radio and tv though[/QUOTE] No single company runs social networking either.
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;36124220]Haha mark shoulda sold every single share he had right after they went public.[/QUOTE] You don't get he already made billions while holding his control over the company still. He had no reason to sell any more. He is set for life and lost nothing. The initial overvaluation of stock, if nothing more, made him gain a lot of money for nothing. Facebook will keep doing great. They aren't dependent on their stock selling.
UCS was saying Facebook was doomed because they made no product and relied on ad revenue, which is characteristic of some television networks, radio networks, and social media in general. My point is that a company doesn't need to make a product to be profitable, it can also provide a service. [editline]30th May 2012[/editline] Damn my automerge.
Zuckerburg CEO of the year every year
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36128075]No single company runs social networking either.[/QUOTE] And?
The problem is that they don't have any real revenue besides ads, which are directly related to users that can move platforms in a heartbeat. They did it with MySpace, they can do it again with Facebook in an instant.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;36128093]UCS was saying Facebook was doomed because they made no product and relied on ad revenue, which is characteristic of some television networks, radio networks, and social media in general. My point is that a company doesn't need to make a product to be profitable, it can also provide a service. [editline]30th May 2012[/editline] Damn my automerge.[/QUOTE] Television ads, while they may be ignored, are far more effective than internet sidebar ads
[QUOTE=Sharkcheater;36128342]And?[/QUOTE] So Facebook stock plummeting has nothing to do with them not "making a product", and everything to do with Facebook overestimating their own value. [editline]30th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36128391]Television ads, while they may be ignored, are far more effective than internet sidebar ads[/QUOTE] They are still profitable, otherwise for profit blogs and websites wouldn't exist. It might not be feasible to make as much profit as a television ad, but it's still feasible to be a profitable business relying on internet ad revenue.
why is it that for everything we have, russia has something similar that is really popular in the USSR?
I'll probably end up buying some Facebook stock if it drops below $10. Since Facebook did become a publicly traded company, you're probably going to see greater strides to opening more avenues for profit. I don't see it going away anytime soon. It could happen, but that is the risk you take in the stock market in general.
[QUOTE=Radley;36128649]why is it that for everything we have, russia has something similar that is really popular in the USSR?[/QUOTE] Haha the USSR...
[QUOTE=nicatronTg;36128377]The problem is that they don't have any real revenue besides ads, which are directly related to users that can move platforms in a heartbeat. They did it with MySpace, they can do it again with Facebook in an instant.[/QUOTE] a lot of companies don't have any real revenues besides ads. this is probably the single dumbest thing you can talk about when discussing an IPO.
[QUOTE=Socram;36125915]What are you basing this "better" value off of? Or are you just picking a random range of values below 104 since you already know that was too high?[/QUOTE] I am basing it on many estimates the company and other institutions had before going public. The reason people saw that 104 was too much was because most people valued them at much less than that (but still on a multi billion dollar level).
[QUOTE=Radley;36128649]why is it that for everything we have, russia has something similar that is really popular in the USSR?[/QUOTE] Oh wow 3 dumbs, you people can't actually see past this?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.