Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Friendster Back from the Dead?

Posted by Zonk on Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:05 AM
from the brains? dept.
The Internet Businesses
garzpacho writes "With a fresh infusion of $10 million in funding, Friendster is making a bid to rejoin the social networking A-list. The cash, from VC firm DAG Ventures, accompanies plans for a complete project redesign, a focus on adult users and a newly awarded patent for social networking. A real comeback might be unlikely, though: 'Turnaround stories for companies that draw on advanced Web technology known collectively as Web 2.0 remain unprecedented, says David Sze, a general partner at Greylock who specializes in consumer Internet companies but does not invest in Friendster. Still, Sze says Friendster doesn't need to have a MySpace-size traffic explosion to turn a profit. Says Sze in an e-mail, 'If those users are reasonably valuable and monetizable, I think [investors] can make money on their investment.''"

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: Friendster Patents Social Networking 96 comments
Pontifex maximus writes "Friendster has said that as of this week, it has a patent covering online social networks. It applied for the patent before the company's downward spiral and recent growth." From the article: "'It's way too early to say' whether the company would pursue licenses and litigation from its competitors, Friendster President Kent Lindstrom told RedHerring.com. 'We'll do what we can to protect our intellectual property.' Though the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. 'Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,' said attorney Bill Heinze of Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Friendster Back from the Dead? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 91 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • Yeah, but (Score:2)

    by mclaincausey (777353) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:09AM (#15956088)
    (http://mclaincausey.com/)
    all the fake photos I need are on Myspace!
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Friendster.. I remember them. (Score:3, Funny)

    by demonic-halo (652519) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:12AM (#15956121)
    I still have an account on there. I really like their birthday reminders, lets me know which friends to avoid so I don't end up having to buy them birthday gifts.

  • Windows 3.1 making a comeback as well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xintegerx (557455) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:13AM (#15956128)
    (http://578.291.762.662/)
    Why buy Windows every year when you can buy Windows 3.1 on eBay for the cheap? It has everything except DirectX for games, or the ability to run .NET and Office 2003 applications, but so does Linux.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBNBQRXvkps [youtube.com]

    (This is a joke)

  • oi! (Score:1)

    by supabeast! (84658) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:16AM (#15956151)
    hey DAG Ventures, 1999 called, they want their stupid investors back!
    • Re:oi! by OctoberSky (Score:2) Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:28AM

  • Friendster making a comback... (Score:2)

    by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:16AM (#15956154)
    Friendster making a comback, but so are discos.
  • The problem with ANY new or 're-established' "web 2.0" social networking site is that the existing ones are firmly entrenched, and theres not a big reason to switch to a different one if all your friend are already on the one you have.

    They're going to have to do something different and unique to get noticed, otherwise they have a snowball's chance in hell of making it work. :)

  • Blah. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:17AM (#15956163)
    (http://robvincent.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 09, @01:55PM)
    If I get hold of a once-marketable name, slap some "Web 2.0" style buzzwords on it, and do some patent-trolling, can I have $10 million in venture capital too?

    • Re:Blah. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:32AM (#15956283)
      (Last Journal: Friday November 10 2006, @02:16PM)
      If I get hold of a once-marketable name, slap some "Web 2.0" style buzzwords on it, and do some patent-trolling, can I have $10 million in venture capital too?
      Yes. Yes you can. In the last version it was all ".com" and "web" and "online." Now it's Web 2.0. There's a sucker born every minute, and apparently some of those suckers are too young to remember the 90s.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Blah. by shark72 (Score:2) Tuesday August 22 2006, @03:26PM
    • Re:Blah. by gEvil (beta) (Score:2) Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:08PM
    • Re:Blah. by ImTheDarkcyde (Score:2) Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:29PM
    • Re:Blah. by Pollardito (Score:2) Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:33PM

  • Between the lines: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by theCat (36907) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:18AM (#15956167)
    (Last Journal: Thursday February 27 2003, @03:22PM)
    "With our patent on social networking, we really don't need traffic at all. Maybe just enough to have a claim to *be* a valid site so that we can extort... erm... exercise our patent rights with actual... erm... other social networks that have beat us to the... erm... violated our intellectual property at the expense of our feckless... erm... creative leadership."

  • MySpace (Score:1)

    by EvilEddie (243404) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:18AM (#15956168)
    (http://www.chicksdaily.com/)
    MySpace will crush this pretty quick...

    I see this comeback being about as successful as the Napseter comeback.

  • Lack of interest. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jellomizer (103300) * on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:19AM (#15956172)
    (http://tsfraser.googlepages.com/index.html)
    I think I was speak for most slashdotters with "Meh". I am still hoping for Pets.com to get back with Web 2.0.

  • How long until? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shr3k (451065) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:23AM (#15956207)
    (http://slashdot.org/~shr3k)
    How long until we have a repeat of the IM wars? One network is going to want to be compatible with another network, but can't because that network won't open up its protocols. One network might even join forces and share compatibility with other networks (e.g., Friendster, Facebook) to take on one giant, established network (Myspace).

    Hopefully, someone will come out with some kind of meta-network that lets me join each network and keeps up-to-date a basic compatibility (e.g., like GAIM and Trillian do for IM).

  • Make money?How? (Score:1)

    by in2mind (988476) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:25AM (#15956219)
    (http://in2mind.blogspot.com/)
    Sze says Friendster doesn't need to have a MySpace-size traffic explosion to turn a profit. Says Sze in an e-mail, 'If those users are reasonably valuable and monetizable, I think [investors] can make money on their investment

    How exactly are they going to make money?
    With those googleads like ads they got there??
    http://www.friendster.com/ [friendster.com]

  • Friendster is great, but (Score:4, Interesting)

    by drgroove (631550) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:27AM (#15956230)
    Friendster is great, but, though I personally traffic it more than MySpace, I'll never pay to use it (or allow myself to be nickel-and-dimed for using features within it), nor will I click on any ads featured within it. Frankly, I don't see how monetization of Friendster is possible; even those of my colleagues who are "hard core" Friendster users (i.e., visiting the site daily, frequent message/picture posting, etc) have no intention of paying for the service. Too many free options exist outside of Friendster for this approach to be successful; users will simply flock to the next "free" (as in beer) social networking service should Friendster become too heavily monetized.

    I think they're doomed.
  • is anybody else who uses OpenDNS having trouble visiting http://www.businessweek.com/ [businessweek.com]?

  • It's possible... (Score:1)

    by B11 (894359) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:39AM (#15956331)
    I think they might pull it off if they offered some sort of niche social networking, maybe for adults/woring professionals past college age that could use social networking tools without all the crap and creepiness found on myspace. I would use something like that.

  • Mot much of a chance (Score:2)

    by NineNine (235196) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:49AM (#15956423)
    (http://ninenine.com/)
    These silly social networking sites are like bars: there's very little that the owner can do to make it "cool". Whether it's "cool" or not is largely determined by the mob mentality of their customers and inertia. It's unlikely that Friendster will make any kind of significant comeback. MySpace has too much inertia, and if it truly is social, then people want to hang out where their friends already do.

  • Jobs (Score:2)

    by jimmyCarter (56088) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @11:50AM (#15956426)
    (Last Journal: Saturday November 09 2002, @11:58PM)
    They seem to be hiring again [crunchboard.com]. If you enjoy a real challenge and have the skill-set..

  • Friendster *can* buy popularity. (Score:2)

    by Peter Trepan (572016) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:01PM (#15956533)
    They can do what MySpace did, and pay 100,000 girls a hundred bucks each to pretend that they are "bi."

  • hyperventilating over patents (Score:1)

    by supertex2000 (997089) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:20PM (#15956680)
    The patent drafter can say anything he wants in the description, like "a system in accordance with the present invention includes a computer and a keyboard", but the only rights the owner gets are in the claims. Friendster's patent rights amount to (every word in this must be present in a competitor's product in order to successfully sue for infringement - caveat...not considering doctrine of equivalents): 1. In a computer system including a server computer and a database of registered users that stores for each registered user, a user ID of the registered user and a set of user IDs of registered users who are directly connected to the registered user, a method for connecting a first registered user to a second registered user through one or more other registered users, the method comprising the steps of: setting a maximum degree of separation (Nmax) of at least two that is allowed for connecting any two registered users, wherein two registered users who are directly connected are deemed to be separated by one degree of separation and two registered users who are connected through no less than one other registered user are deemed to be separated by two degrees of separation and two registered users who are connected through no less than N other registered users are deemed to be separated by N+1 degrees of separation; searching for the user ID of the second registered user in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are less than Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, and not in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are greater than or equal to Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, until the user ID of the second registered user is found in one of the searched sets; and connecting the first registered user to the second registered user if the user ID of the second registered user is found in one of the searched sets, wherein the method limits the searching of the second registered user in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are less than Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, such that the first registered user and the second registered user who are separated by more than Nmax degrees of separation are not found and connected.

  • I can't wait... (Score:1)

    by jo42 (227475) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:20PM (#15956682)
    (http://127.0.0.42/)
    ...until this Web 2.0, 'social', {insert more buzzwords here} crap fad is over.

    Unfortunately, something even more lame and stupid will probably replace it...

    Sigh.

  • Note to Self: (Score:2)

    by ewhac (5844) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:30PM (#15956779)
    (http://ewhac.best.vwh.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 18 2001, @10:28PM)
    ...plans for a complete project redesign, a focus on adult users and a newly awarded patent for social networking. [emphasis mine]

    That reminds me -- I need to delete my Friendster account.

    I shouldn't be hesitant about it; after all, Friendster has done exactly zilch for me. But I worry that my dropping out might negatively impact, even a little bit, the social networks of my friends, particularly those who joined at my invitation. Still, I cannot abide that my social network is being used to further an unconscionable power grab via an illicit "patent." So the account's going to have to get killed sooner or later...

    Schwab

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Web 2.0 Garbage (Score:1)

    by x3nos (773066) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:50PM (#15956970)

    Humph! They added AJAX controls to the frontpage, added vids, blogs, blah, blah - not impressed.

    Just because it used AJAX, ATLAS, .NET 2.0 or any of the "new" technologies doesn't mean anything. It's still going to be bottom-barrel internet fodder. The idea of social networking and reputation driven sites have been around for ages (look at /.)

    The question then is this: do social networking communities or even reputation servers in the longrun do anything for anyone, except in small specialized communites (like bushmen tribes in the Australia and maybe even slashdot), or in the case of commerce; i.e. Google, Ebay, Amazon, etc?

    All attempts I have seen outside of this, Friendster or dare I mention Orkut, have failed. I do recall seeing quite a bit of activity from west coast users however on sites like Tribes, but again these were activity based groups that had RL connections. Again, I look to the idea that like most social based networks, unless united by a common and specialized purpose tend to fall apart. And we wonder why world peace seems so far away.

  • a new social network site (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by jetpeach (704759) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:51PM (#15956984)
    (http://www.zoji.com/jet)
    Please don't consider this spam, because it really IS relevant - a friend of mine has started a very slick new social networking site, uses CSS, has RSS feeds, IM chat similar to Gmail... The feature set is really amazing, it's got feature parity or better with every social networking site I've ever seen and evite and blogging, has unlimited photo sharing, and does email as well. It's called Zoji [zoji.com], please check it out before you mod this.
    Here is the About Us [zoji.com] page. He considers it really "pre-launch" still because he's waiting before advertising and a real media push until he adds some more really cool stuff that's coming (development is Fast), but if you want to check it out give some feedback, this is my profile page [zoji.com] and they have a to give the developers feedback. [zoji.com]
    Maybe someday it will get posted on the frontpage of /. that'll the day for Dan :)

  • Imagine ... (Score:1)

    by Cyburbia (695748) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @01:24PM (#15957203)
    (http://www.cyburbia.org/)
    a Beowulf cluster of friends!

  • Wanna compete with myspace? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by British (51765) <british1500.gmail@com> on Tuesday August 22 2006, @01:26PM (#15957216)
    (http://infaux.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 01 2005, @02:08PM)
    It's easy, Friendster, just do what your competitors can't do.

    1. Quit having unexpected errors every 10 minutes
    2. Actual search functions that allow exact matches, etc. Not a fake search engine that returns everything.
    3. No huge influx of Brazilian users
    4. Don't allow customization of pages to the point of saturating a T1 connection upon viewing.
    5. Actual active moderators(in message boards, etc).
    6. No spyware-deploying ads.
    7. No private profiles. No purpose of a private profile on a social networking site.
    8. No orkut-like invite system. No new user filtration like facebook has.
    9. And the big one: no spambots allowed. Captchas, ACTIVE IP banning, and numerous other defenses. Myspace is losing the war on this.

    If Friendster can set a solid ground with doing the above, maybe they can get some converts from those who are tired of myspace's problems.

  • Colbert Report Reference (Score:1)

    by Tz-Auber (984141) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @01:40PM (#15957300)
    Friendster might still be trying to come back, but according to Steven Colbert, he's still actively trying to look for his new Black Friend(tm) on Blackfriendster.com!

  • It's all about the patents (Score:2)

    by tinrobot (314936) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @01:56PM (#15957437)
    I suspect they got the cash infusion because they just got a very general patent on social networking. They could force just about every other social networking site to pay them lots and lots of money.

    The stuff about "resurrecting" Friendster seems to be more of a PR move. They'll try to compete, but pretty soon, they'll claim they can't compete because other sites have stolen their patented ideas. Then Friendster can sue these sites and claim even more damage.

  • Greylock comments (Score:2)

    by tqbf (59350) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @03:52PM (#15958252)
    (http://www.pobox.com/~tqbf)
    Greylock doesn't simply "not invest" in Friendster; they're the lead investor in LinkedIn, Friendster's direct competitor.

  • Re:John McCain: Beltway Bandit +1, Patriotic (Score:1)

    by HoboMaster (639861) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @12:19PM (#15956674)
    I hope somebody sets fire to you for posting this shit.
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Re:John McCain: Beltway Bandit +1, Patriotic (Score:1)

    by Don853 (978535) on Tuesday August 22 2006, @01:41PM (#15957311)
    What's the site that automatically generates these? I refuse to believe that you actually wrote all of this.
    [ Parent ]
  • 9 replies beneath your current threshold.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.