Originally Posted by meekrab
Subscriptions are the exact wrong way for FB to go. They've built a reputation on being $free. The front page even says
They recently started testing 'Highlighted Posts' where you pay money to have your posts be more prominent in your friend's feeds instead of getting lost...
Originally Posted by Gullanian
- Google is worth $200bn and is far more diverse (less risk), Facebook is a one trick pony (it's a good trick though)
- Everyone gives FB's value from 'potential'. June 2011 Google had 1 billion users and it's already monetised them successfully!
How is Google diverse? 9x% of Google's money is from Adsense and Adwords. Everything else they have ever tried is losing money or making peanuts.
Facebook has a very captive audience. Can you see FB offering Google's products like email - or search?
Microsoft owns a decent chunk of FB and they will be cashing in on this IPO as well. The two companies are scheming something behind the curtains. I can imagine FB search (backed by MS) supplanting Google search just a bit more easily than G+ supplanting FB.
Every company is always judged by their current financials and by their potential. This is why low risk assets like public utilities make a ton of money but trade at low P/E and higher risk assets trade at high P/E.
I'm certainly no Facebook defender. I don't really care one way or another. I'm just a bit player trying to think of ways to make money off of this.