The Maturation of Mark Zuckerberg

He got nervous and started sweating. Might be a bit aggressive to call that a "meltdown."

I think this is what they're talking about: http://allthingsd.com/video/?video_id=f403bcce-661b-451b-8bc...

Every company is staffed with "good" people; some are not that good, and some are not listened to.

But will he listen to them? What if "they" can't even agree amongst themselves? How would he decide?

My point was the product is geared towards the immature, and his being immature for so many years gives him an advantage in understanding both the product and his target audience. Yes you could train a mature person to think like a college kid, and maybe they could even hearken back to their college days for reference, but the times they are a-changin' and what's been considered cool for the past decade won't be next decade. Thus my point was: will Zuck be able to keep up with what's cool as he gets old and out of touch? My opinion is that being mature is actually a detriment here.

It is, but in the reverse factor, I mean the normal factor, that which is stating the common sense fact that the more experienced you are the more you can do difficult things (including putting yourself in the shoes of young immature people)

It seems crazy that just for 2 examples of youngster having been promoted on the front page of magazines suddenly everyone seem to think only young people can do that.

As far as I can tell, and in fact I don;t care that much, Steve Jobs was not very young, neither is Jeff Bezos. The founder on the web company where I work is look young, but not that young, I'd guess over his forties.

Exactly. 1 billion people is a pretty broad target market.

Interesting. Context via Wikipedia:

>>Henry Blodget (born 1966) is an American former equity research analyst, currently banned from the securities industry, who was senior Internet analyst for CIBC Oppenheimer during the dot-com bubble and the head of the global Internet research team at Merrill Lynch. Blodget is now the editor and CEO of The Business Insider, a business news and analysis site, and a host of Yahoo Daily Ticker, a finance show on Yahoo.

>>Blodget received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale University and began his career as a freelance journalist and was a proofreader for Harper's Magazine. In 1994, Blodget joined the corporate finance training program at Prudential Securities, and, two years later, moved to Oppenheimer & Co. in equity research. In October 1998, he predicted that Amazon.com's stock price would hit a pre-split price of $400 (which it did a month later, gaining 128%).

>>This call received significant media attention, and, two months later, he accepted a position at Merrill Lynch. In early 2000, days before the dot-com bubble burst, Blodget personally invested $700,000 in tech stocks, only to lose most of it in the years that followed. In 2001, he accepted a buyout offer from Merrill Lynch and left the firm.

>>In 2002, then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, published Merrill Lynch e-mails in which Blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published. In 2003, he was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Blodget

In case anyone was wondering, that comment is almost a textbook example of an ad hominem.

You shouldn't be worried about either.

Smoke and mirrors are always in stock.

I think that ship has already sailed...

Well, one is for sure: Zuckerberg was very lucky that Instagram owners were not mini-Zucks. Scared to think what will happen next time when Zuck needs to buy a competitor and they owner will greet him with: "Hello, Mr. Mark, I am Bark, CEO of X, Bitch!"

But machines are rational and logical, people are not. :|

I know he can. but, I feel that it's not easy. I myself find it extremely difficult. One does not simply give up coding.

I think there must be many others here who must have faced difficulty in making a transition from developer to manager.

sure. the line that was toughest to swallow was this one:

"In a market where ­speed is critical, venture-capital funding allows young companies to move faster than they could if they had to rely only on revenues to fund product development. Entrepreneurs who understand that tend to stick around to make plenty of money later"

really? do they really stick around to make plenty of money? sentence 1 may be true, but that doesn't make sentence 2 true.

i couldn't finish the article. here are a few more choice phrases:

"Many promising tech companies place too much emphasis too soon on the business rather than the product"

"Most entrepreneurs are creative and impatient, an often fatal combination—trying to do too many things, they spread their tiny companies too thin"

it's just not my style of writing. at all.

You're right. Too cynical. I took it out. But remember we don't know who the executive is. He/she may have been even worse than Zuckerberg on the ethical scale. I don't doubt there are some very creepy "executives" working at Facebook.

"rise to the top"?

I think you mean protecting his position at the top from "executives". Some of who may have little skill to offer the company (as someone above said, age is a factor) but are who are quite adept at maneuvering their way into higher salaries and greater powers of decision-making.

In this case, it really is that simple. Unlike Google, which provides a necessary service, Facebook is not necessary. I have lost nothing at all from not using Facebook. Social media might be important for advertising, but chances are that you personally really don't need Facebook.

Delete your account and go on with life. Some people might not forward you an invite to some event, but they are really not friends if they choose to do this. Writing a short email is not a big time investment. Hell, you can write one email to all your non-Facebook using friends!