Comment by phlux | Hacker News Reader

Comment by phlux | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Sadly, Facebook.

EDIT: Ill add some detail to my point;

Google ramped up huge to where they are now, Facebook has been ramping up as well - but as Google enters maintenance mode with all of its service and tech - Facebook is still in a massively growth oriented position.

Even if they're new user adoption slows, or even stops - the number of products based on their data-set alone, for their 500MM users that can be built is huge - and the value of those products even larger.

This is why all the defections from Google have occurred.

They built an amazing foundation for the internet at Google, now they will build upon that with far more specific and deep information of the user base and how they are all related to each other

What facebook has is something that is required for the true "semantic web" which has been talked of for decades. Very very deep and specific information on every aspect of it's users interests. This is something that Google thought it was going to accumulate - but the problem is that from googles view, every person is a silo of interests - where they would have to do a lot of correlation on the back-end (which they have done) through their varied products.

Facebook, rather, has built a true interest portal and people are throwing ever single bit of human interaction data they can right into i - and linking it all up for facebook.

There is a very very interesting future (albeit scary) if facebook doesn't fuck this up.

Edit: typed this before you add detail, which adds weight to your argument. Thanks.

I don't think so.

Google's revenues 2010: $29,321,000,000

Facebook's revenues 2010: < $1,000,000,000

Google is also solving much more challenging technical problems (not to dismiss the smart people at Facebook, but Facebook is really only interesting because of its extreme scale. Except for that, it's pretty much a CRUD app)

1) I think FB actually did almost $2B in revenue: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/18/...

2) I think the best analogy is to 2003. At that time, when people started to talk about Microsoft vs. Google, I was like, "huh? What do you mean? Google does search and MS makes operating systems."

It was after the IPO, with Gmail, that Google moved on from being a category killer in search to just demolishing so many other verticals (Gmail, Maps, Docs and more recently Chrome, Android) and taking the throne from MS.

If history repeats, it will be over the next two years -- probably when Facebook launches social search, and it's really good -- that the game will have decisively shifted.

PS: I'm sure you didn't meant it this way, but pointing to the revenue scoreboard is what Microsoft employees did and still do when talking about MS vs. Google. MS still makes more money than Google and always has. The top dog title is about mindshare/rate of growth/poaching ability in addition to revenue.

I agree. Thinking about the recent goldman deal it makes me think if perhaps it could be legit! Is it possible that goldman is expecting facebook to become the de facto ad platform?

And, as server tech improves, both hardware and software, their extreme scale becomes less interesting over time.

Apple is probably top dog here... they made more in profits than Google's total revenue for 2010 Q4.

Actually that's not true. Apple made $6 billion in profit vs Google's $8.44 billion in revenue (and $2.54 billion in profit).

sources: - http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_17152005 - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-18/apple-profit-rises-...

Apple is (mostly) a hardware company - they don't compete with Google in any meaningful way.

Facebook does, at least in the sense that both operate in the web/user space, and both have advertising as their fundamental source of revenue.

Wouldn't you say that Android is currently the biggest competitor to the iPhone?

Apple & Google are both pretty big companies and will likely be competing in the same space given the number of products they both own. Apple's iAds are a direct competitor to Adsense on mobile devices, Apple TV/Google TV, etc.

Well, with Steve jobs likely not living through the next 4 years, and Facebook still an infant, I still think that the future is unset.

I agree that the appearance of revenues at this point make people dismiss facebook - but also take note of the very very high level talent they have been snatching up and the circle of advisors they have.

Give it 3-5 years. You will see Googles revenue slow/plateau a bit - but if Facebook can do what it thinks it can do with its userbase and dataset, it is going to be very interesting.

Also, I predict that Facebooks revenues will not skyrocket -- but rather their influence, reach and stranglehold on way too many aspects of on-line life will take deep root.

They will likely begin an acquisition play very soon which will be focused on payments, security, retail/ecomm and analytics.

While google has been a gateway to the internets information - I see facebook trying to be a funnel/traffic-cop to your online relationships interests and transactions.

I wouldn't be be surprised if facebook bought something like square.

I think that before Facebook has the chance to monetize the information they have on their users they will need to start lobbying for less privacy and we have already seen the pushbacks from its user base.

That being said, I have to agree that Facebook still has a lot of places to go, but I wouldn't put it past Google with new leadership at the top to come out fighting and bring a few new tricks to the table.

I look forward to what the future brings. Just for all that is holy get rid of the damn Facebook connect crap.

It seems to me that people are always valuing Facebook by its potential, whereas Google is judged by its actual performance (which isn't exactly slouching, numbers-wise).

Which is exactly the way the Google/Microsoft matchup was always cast. Until Google realized that potential.

Who exactly anointed facebook top dog on the web and how exactly was this measured? I keep seeing this claim floating around, but very little justification for it.

As far as wealth-creation goes, Facebook doesn't even compare to Google. Facebook is great, and has huge potential, and may find ways to make money head over fist, but it is fundamentally a toy. There are no ways to create value directly from it, only to piggy-back on the number people using it. Sure, there's the occasional community and event management that takes place there, and as far as social communication goes it's really unequaled (I talk to most of my friends on facebook), but this does not feed anybody.

Google on the other hand has both feet firmly planted in the internet infrastructure. At this time there are more people using them directly then any other web service, for both work and personal reasons. They create real and tangible value. They actually make money for the people using them.

This is a big difference. Sure, for the lonely entrepreneur it doesn't really matter if his startup is about lolcat pictures - as long as he gets enough visitors, he's set for life. But in the grand scheme of things it actually matters if you're dealing in lolcats or create real value. It wouldn't scale otherwise.

Facebook is in a great position and will surely be quite influential in the next 5 years, but I think they'd have to do more before they could be called 'top dog'. Really I don't think any single corporation is in that position. Some people make hardware, some do software at different levels, then there's the government - and they're all interdependent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com