http://www.collegecolosseum.co.....?topic=9.0

As a developer, I am excited by social networking, and when launching applications it would be nice to launch within an existing social community.

As a user, I am starting to be overwhelmed by the number of social networks that are springing up. Partly irrelevant since the social networks within the applications are very contextual and viral - however - using a single social network platform is appealing. Or at the very least some means of aggregating all of social network connection points.

I still think social networks are going to connect to IM in a way. A more pervasive social experience. I am really surprised we haven’t seen a plethora of IM plugins for social network connections.

I do not believe we have seen the power of social networks yet - F8 - is the first foray to empower developers to easily build applications. (probably not true - however… true all the same)

Orkut - was my early favourite social network tool, and still like parts of it. What I like most is that it is representative of my real world social network - not the current bastardization represented on social network sites like MySpace. Facebook approaches this because it is extremely sticky and viral - that my real world network is starting to be represented.

I would to see some offline network management tools to be integrated so I can represent my social network within facebook, and then “fill in” my social network as people join facebook. I may want to do it passively rather than virally. eg I run a charity event - I would privately list EVERY individual who has ever participated in my event - when I want to do some announcements I want to engage “existing” members to exchange messaging and presence permissions.

(yes I can do this manually)
(yes I can do this with groups - although OFFLINE members are NOT tracked - so if/when they join it would be nice to prepare invitations before they join.)

An jeder Ecke wird gemunkelt, wer Facebook demnächst für welche Unsumme aufkaufen wird. Yahoo hatte sich mal mit einem Angebot von 1$ Mrd versucht, welches Dankend abgeschlagen wurde. Der Mark Zuckerberg macht meiner Meinung nach bisher alles richtig…

http://www.gottabet.com/bet/11.....i_am_bored

Michael is on “no sale/ipo in 2007″, not sure exactly where Duncan is (probably 2007, but not sure about valo). Who will take the VC funded keg of beer home?

It’s $6bn in the hands of someone that can make more money from them, not from their own operations.

How is this being overlooked?

Duncan Riley at TechCrunch today explores the options for still-indepedent Facebook. With talk of Yahoo eyeing a $1B price tag on Bebo, it looks like Facebook is in a good position to get far more—but from whom? In the comments, Michael Arrington p…

Acquisition fever is in full swing. Facebook would be silly to pass up any reasonable offer above $2 - 2.5 billion. If an acquisition doesn’t shape up in the next little bit, Facebook may fall victim to the same outcome as Friendster…. oops did I say that?

Aidan Henry
http://www.MappingTheWeb.com

Facebook succeeds in large part because it’s a relatively closed network tailored to fit the needs of a specific demographic. It’s not something that’s really generalizable to fit the whole internet. Think about it - what advantage would it get from a “Try Facebook!” link on the Google homepage? Not much.

The problem is that it’s not primarily a content aggregation site the way Flickr/Youtube are - I have to imagine the vast majority of those photos are kept private, and they’re probably useless to index unless Google wants to launch a “College Party Search”. So there’s not much synergy between other properties.

If as the rumours are true, and Facebook opens up their data to allow 3rd parties to build from, then they are even smarter than I originally gave them credit for. The site has huge potential to be an absolute gold mine. I can envision all sorts of spin off services putting FBs network integration to maximum use, and thus keeping the site sticky.

altho good vs bad IPO markets do make a difference, great companies don’t really have to give a shit.

ex #1: PayPal went public in Feb 2002, in one of the toughest markets ever — post dot-com implosion, post 9/11, in the face of extreme skepticism. the company filed at $13, closed the first day at $18, and was bought by eBay in the fall at around $20-25 (sorry, don’t remember exactly).

ex #2: Google went public with incredible negative perception by traditional inv banker market, tweaked some noses by using an auction model (that had a few stumbles, but i did participate), and even flirted with blowing the quiet period with the playboy interview. for those of us who were happy to get in at anything under $125 / share, we were well-rewarded at $85 / share if we hung in there (alas, i exited happy as a clam @ $180… oops).

in both situations, the companies blew away the market. they might have worried a bit about timing, but at the same time htier fundamentals were so solid, the market would have been fools to ignore them.

the same goes for Facebook. the dna of the company shares a lot with Google and PayPal, and i wouldn’t expect anything different from Zuckerberg, with Peter Thiel looking over his shoulder.

Facebook is immensely valuable, growing rapidly, and won’t sell to anyone without a substantial premium. likely they’ll IPO whenever they’re damn well ready, and if you can get in on that action it will probably be a great long-term investment.

- dave mcclure
http://500hats.typepad.com

……

I have played around with their API and have considered building our network of business directories ShopDirectories.com on top of Facebook’s platform. It is the first time I have ever considered using a third-party system.

Those who live in Ontario, Canada, where Facebook has BLOWN UP, would recognize why I would be considering it.

Literally, with the exception of about 10 people, EVERYONE I KNOW is using Facebook.

According to media reports, Facebook has taken off faster and to a larger degree in Ontario and Canada than anywhere else in the world.

I think the reason it’s different here than down in the USA is that because the site launched without the college/high school restrictions, it has just taken off and grown based on local, social networks.

Knowing how powerful Facebook is here - and therefore how powerful it could be everywhere - I wouldn’t be surprised to see Facebook go for $10 billion.

Crazy.

What impresses me about Facebook, is that they cleanly offer their services for free to a diverse community, and still generate $100MM in revenues. There is plenty of room for value added to Facebook, without going the traditional “sell-out” route.

1. Trust in your management team.

2. Organic growth catered to your target community.

From what I read in the article and the comments, I think that the underlying issue is pressure from the VCs, and Facebook needs a plan to satisfy them and maintain their creative control.