@pw378Correct Google has shown they can be profitable with their business model. Their business model is quite different from Facebook who has not yet turned a profit.
@HeavyWave: No. You cannot dump a MySQL database without locking tables... *if you want your data whole and consistent and actually usable in case of need of restoration*.Everything else can do this.
>> "FYI: Cash flow positive does not equal profitable."Is that better than being cash flow negative? Should Facebook have just given up after the first year because they weren't profitable?
No, but it has been a lot longer than a year.As long as they are able to find willing investors, they can run forever for all I care. I don't have anything against Facebook, but I’m surprised that these investors didn’t learn a lesson from the dot-com bubble. Normally, an investor likes to see a business model that works or seems to make sense before they risk their money. I can’t list one strictly ad-supported site that makes money off the top of my head. The fact that Facebook is one of the largest and still doesn’t make money, is just more proof of that. It’s that same thing with YouTube, which would probably have gone bankrupt by now, if it wasn’t for Google’s money. Last I heard, Youtube was losing over a million dollars a month.Google is not a strictly ad-supported site in the tradional sense. They are basically the coordinaters of the majority of the internet’s advertising as well as a variety of other activities.
>> "The fact that Facebook is one of the largest and still doesn?t make money, is just more proof of that."I've said that for many years. So what hope is there for an ad-supported free web? Looking at my bookmark bar... I have Facebook, Engadget, Gizmodo, Digg, LifeHacker, AutoBlog, Jalopnik, Anadtech, Tom's Hardware, HardForum, Smashing Mag, SixRevisions, etc, etc, etc.With the exception of the Weblog, Inc sites, which have AOL's money (AOL makes money?)... all of those other sites are ad supported.What will happen to them if the ad money dries up? It seems like everyone is losing ad revenue... yet companies still need somewhere to place their ads.In 10 years will we still be in the same place?Ads are a gamble anyway... Companies still put billboards up on busy highways... but there is no gaurantee anyone will look at them... it's just a risk.So, even if companies might not make direct money with ads on Facebook.... they will *still* place ads of Facebook because it gets the most visitors.That's good for Facebook, anyway.
timthetaxmanOct 15, 2009
@pw378Correct Google has shown they can be profitable with their business model. Their business model is quite different from Facebook who has not yet turned a profit.
dvs1313Oct 15, 2009
thats 29,998 more than NoobTube has!www.noob-tube.com
Closed AccountOct 15, 2009
i see what you did there
pinkertonneOct 15, 2009
@HeavyWave: No. You cannot dump a MySQL database without locking tables... *if you want your data whole and consistent and actually usable in case of need of restoration*.Everything else can do this.
mscripOct 15, 2009
>> "FYI: Cash flow positive does not equal profitable."Is that better than being cash flow negative? Should Facebook have just given up after the first year because they weren't profitable?
timthetaxmanOct 15, 2009
No, but it has been a lot longer than a year.As long as they are able to find willing investors, they can run forever for all I care. I don't have anything against Facebook, but I’m surprised that these investors didn’t learn a lesson from the dot-com bubble. Normally, an investor likes to see a business model that works or seems to make sense before they risk their money. I can’t list one strictly ad-supported site that makes money off the top of my head. The fact that Facebook is one of the largest and still doesn’t make money, is just more proof of that. It’s that same thing with YouTube, which would probably have gone bankrupt by now, if it wasn’t for Google’s money. Last I heard, Youtube was losing over a million dollars a month.Google is not a strictly ad-supported site in the tradional sense. They are basically the coordinaters of the majority of the internet’s advertising as well as a variety of other activities.
mscripOct 15, 2009
>> "The fact that Facebook is one of the largest and still doesn?t make money, is just more proof of that."I've said that for many years. So what hope is there for an ad-supported free web? Looking at my bookmark bar... I have Facebook, Engadget, Gizmodo, Digg, LifeHacker, AutoBlog, Jalopnik, Anadtech, Tom's Hardware, HardForum, Smashing Mag, SixRevisions, etc, etc, etc.With the exception of the Weblog, Inc sites, which have AOL's money (AOL makes money?)... all of those other sites are ad supported.What will happen to them if the ad money dries up? It seems like everyone is losing ad revenue... yet companies still need somewhere to place their ads.In 10 years will we still be in the same place?Ads are a gamble anyway... Companies still put billboards up on busy highways... but there is no gaurantee anyone will look at them... it's just a risk.So, even if companies might not make direct money with ads on Facebook.... they will *still* place ads of Facebook because it gets the most visitors.That's good for Facebook, anyway.