I beg to agree to disagree. Everyone may have it, even the people who say they don't, but from both a capitalistic and consumer perspective it doesn't help the value of Facebook.

For those who have Facebook who wish to not use it do so out of necessity E.G me. I have a Facebook account which is a complete sock puppet (yes against the Terms of Use please ban me I'm so worried) which I use as a developer to create Facebook integration services for my customers', which is hardly ever. My wife uses Facebook to communicate with friends but holds no loyalty and is waiting for the next big thing to take everyone off Facebook so she doesn't have to see any more painful ads polluting her screen.

Do either of us give value to Facebook? Maybe my wife does because she keys data into it about herself but even then she states that half of what she puts in is crap. She refuses to click on the ads so no value there and as for that 90% of the stuff she keys into Facebook you certainly cannot use that data effectively and sell it with guarantee that the information is in anyway useful and I think this statement goes for MOST Facebook users.

See, Facebook is all about socialising and everyone has a social side, likewise everyone has a personal side. Facebook's BIGGEST downfall is assuming the both are the same. People put information on Facebook that they want the rest of the world (network) to see. They do so because they want to show certain information. When Graph search came out and Facebook was expecting people to key in their dentists for example I was like "never gonna work" and it's because of this very reason.

So what is the value of Facebook.

a) It holds an unregulated metric of data which is purely dependent on the "desire" of the user, this is wholly proven by celebrities or any public figure because they wont have their Mom added to a public Facebook account which has 1,000's of fans a linked into.
b) That metric of data can only be used as a significant speculative indicator for marketers. Where as Google has built quite cleverly an affective metric in the ways to gauge popularity of websites and information. In fact there is an entire industry out there called the SEO / SEM industry based on these metrics.
c) Social Networking as an industry has legs but what we've found is that it's not with FaceBook. FaceBook works great for selling travel, restaurants or places of interest and even events. Not so good for retail or actual products and absolutely useless for B2B sales.

So all that's left is the mobile market and this is like Apple deciding to sell routers and server hardware, not a strong point of theirs. The mobile market is held by the device manufacturers and more particularly the SEO / SEM industry.

The only real way for FB to make any long term money is to abandon social networking and use the money they have which is kinda what they are doing. Graph was a good idea but Google Places has been there for years now and is directly built into your phone. FaceBook Home was a small half backed investment trying to take on the likes of Apple and Samsung and it really buckles chance.

I was expecting Funny for this not Troll. We're still pretty touchy feely about Apple around here aren't we?

And nobody copies Apple better than Google.

Yeah because we cant do this already with NightSky

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-night-sky/id475772902?mt=8

Yes but let's not forget about the guys at Jabba and what they have in store in the coming years.

What I see for FaceBook's future is pretty inevitable. Consider Google+ for Droid, Skype for Windows, Apple figures something out and then there is FaceBook which simply becomes a desktop access point based on people's personal preference, as you would make your choices of search engine you'd also make your choice on what Social Media website to use and if there is an open standard for all then you're only going after the interface preference not what data resides because it all becomes the same data anyway.

If those projects for tying open communications comes to pass then what's really stopping Android from adopting a syncing facility that sends data to Facebook after uploading it to G+? or Apple doing the same? We are talking about text and photos, it isn't complex blocks of encrypted binary here it's stuff the web does every single day.

The world is gagging for a proper communication standard which trumps sms, voice and most defiantly social media. Mobilising Facebook though sounds hip to investors it's bringing it closer to it's death. The people who build mobile devices are smart enough and capable enough to build Facebook features directly into the phone as they are capable to build features into their own social media platforms. All I see the FB website will become is a desktop front-end for this open standard one day.

Of course Facebook can try all they want to lock it down but remember who's devices are they running on? and though the shit fight between device creators and Facebook hasn't started yet. I'm almost certian when FB fails to come up with the goods within the next few years there will be this exact shit fight. Though Google and Apple are used to this kind of crap I feel FB isn't because there ain't no way Apple or Google are prepared to give up market share on their Appstores to some 3rd party no matter how popular they are.

It's a bit of a "need you need me" sentiment FaceBook Maps and Translate features are Bing driven, what alternative is there for FB? Google?

This article really says it all ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/snl-kim-jong-un-declares-gay-marriage-legal-in-north-korea_n_3032251.html

This is what happens when you send Dennis Rodman over as an ambassador!

Cant agree with your boss, friend, professor whatever or how well he practised his trade or knew his stuff and believed what he believed. The problem is this.

Our socialistic views created the concept of taxing rich and "ridiculously" high thresholds, seriously, for example if I earn any profits out of my business the Govt gets to take 30 - 40% of it! LUNACY! Then I get to see that Govt take massive chunks of cash and spend it on shit, not good shit, not bad shit. SHIT SHIT.

Our fascist views created the concept of Tax Avoidance because they are sick of seeing lazy ass cock sucking politicians waste said money on shit shit. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that what is going on here is wrong, unethical and without a doubt terrible.

But it's not the case of what your friend speaks, it's a case of the entire system being not corrupt, not underhanded but just being plain obsolete, futile, broken, dumb-shit run, total dickheadedry, so on and so fourth.

Technology exposes these injustices but the irony is technology causes money to also move at a click of a button, so, technology made what's going on and technology is what is going to break it. Hopefully.

Also Julian Assange probably didn't publish these docs because he's hiding up in the Ecuadoran embassy where half the politicians protecting him are stashing cash in the BVI. A strange tinge of irony as well if this was the case hey? :)

Seems like the excess traffic from /. broke their website

I wouldn't be too worried if I were Google.

The only reason why Facebook needs this because it has no real mobile monetization plan in place. What this is supposed to do is bring mobile share across to Facebook so they can sell ad space, however, the struggles are numerous and to just touch on a few we only have to look at what other companies have had to fair over the past 5 years.

So consider this how much money are they going to spend in tandem with the likelihood that a dwindling Chinese manufacturer such as HTC is even going to make a dent in to the likes of Apple and Samsung?

Rather than say "oh Google should be scared" how about HTF (How the fuck) is HTC and FB going to fair the smartphone shit fight?

I'd say it's a fly by nighter, once off, grab an expiring marketshare that wont lead anyway into the future, Like i've always said, FB should of made a camera not a phone.

With those those electric fields, are they fields of wind, sun or coal electricity? or doesn't it matter? Bees can communicate with all types of fields which contain electricity?

Examples of the fields I'm talking about
http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/DM-Resize/photos.demandstudios.com/getty/article/36/14/dv887019.jpg?w=600&h=600&keep_ratio=1
http://www.screwpile.com.au/app_images/249Solar%20Farm%201.jpg

So you're shocked by the fact that Bees use electricity to communicate?

Is that like being puzzled to learn that Mice can find cheese in a maze?

Mobile gaming has made classic games relevant again. Lets look at what's popular these days.

- Angry Birds
- Swampy Where's my water?
- That zombie in the veggie patch game
- Runner games
- Bubble shooters.

Look at classic games

- Tetris
- Mario/Sonic
- Space invaders
- Pac man

The new games, though based on different mathematical concepts are still very similar to what was out 15-20 years ago. The only resounding difference is anything running a 3D engine of some sort but then we can always go back to the evolution of Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, and Half life then anything beyond that is just refinement of the old, yet again.

If anything, I'd say we're about to see the rebirth of the old labels come back, let's just hope they don't butcher the classics like they do with movies.

Is this like the 2 factor authentication which now that I do my banking on my Smartphone has become 1 factor authentication?

I.E

1. Login to netbank, issue payment on phone
2. Receive SMS authentication code (on the same device)
3. Key in the SMS authentication code in to the phone.
4. Bill paid?