Hacker News Reader

> For someone who has consolidated power in a company that could rival Google

I think you may be getting ahead of yourself on that one.

Facebook/Google comparisons always strike me as way off base. It's like comparing a Central Park (busy, no money) with Disneyland (busy, big money).

Central park isn't a business. If it were a for-profit venture, it would be fairly easy to monetize, purely because it's so popular.

> it would be fairly easy to monetize, purely because it's so popular.

Why? Popularity as a free service doesn't necessarily imply that said popularity will be retained upon introduction of a monetary fee.

The monetization need not be direct (i.e. charging people to use the site). It could be better ad placement, a search engine that knows more about you than google does, monetary transactions (auctions, payments), as well as other stuff...

Like it or not, facebook has real utility (just like central park), and people are willing to pay for real utility in one way or another.

What I'm surprised they haven't done already is extend their event planning mechanism to partner with ticket agents, train companies/airlines, cinema chains, restaurant booking systems, pizza delivery, etc etc.

"Central park isn't a business."

A lot of people don't think Facebook is a business either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com