Are Facebook and Twitter the New Internet

[OHCHUTE 0]

It seems like dotcom domains are becoming passe. Fortune 500 is directing people to their Facebook accounts, not their websites. If this is the case FB should garner much more activity and revenue via ad sales. Just wondering if I should pick up more FB stock?

[Remster 24]

Yes.

Remster

[Mr_Polite 0]

Facebook will probably be dead in a few years. All it is now is stupid e-cards, advertisements and a few pictures or updates.

[quade 3]

It's just the current thing. It's where people are, so that's where companies are making a presence.

People said brick and mortar was dead. The truth is some of it was replaced but not all. "The Internet" just isn't mature and stable yet. It will continue to evolve for quite some time.

Today Facebook feels like it's the face of the Internet, but that will inevitably change.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Today Facebook feels like it's the face of the Internet, but that will inevitably change.

Wasn't that long ago when AOL felt like that.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[normiss 622]

I see them as just fads.

I have yet to even see a reason for me to "tweet".
Much less read another person's "tweets".

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It seems like dotcom domains are becoming passe. Fortune 500 is directing people to their Facebook accounts, not their websites. If this is the case FB should garner much more activity and revenue via ad sales. Just wondering if I should pick up more FB stock?

When was the last time you went to your MySpace page...

[OHCHUTE 0]

I mean will FB and Twitter be the domain identifier instand of .com. Will it be Facebook/Coke instead of Coke.com, and @coke. Will you even need a website? Why not just keep your info on Facebook and abandon the .com website? Now when you select company name you have to check google, facebook, twitter as well a USPTO.... just charting trends

[billvon 2,400]

Facebook and Twitter just use the Internet; they're not the "new version" of the Internet. That's like asking if Fedex is the new airplane.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Facebook and Twitter just use the Internet; they're not the "new version" of the Internet. That's like asking if Fedex is the new airplane.

OMG, Yes I know they're not Web 2.0. Facebook and Twitter are domains that utilize /html extensions.

Facebook/Billvon etc.

My question is: why have Billvon.com when you can just as easily use Facebook/Billvon instead.

There much advertising going into pointing people to Facebook/xyzcorp not visit xyzcorp.com

If this is the case the whole Internet world is shifted from the .com world to a subset of .com, namely facebook.com, hence the new internet so to speak but not really.

In otherwords, if everyone is on Facebook and logged into Facebook they're not anywhere else on the Internet but on facebook. Which means if everyone is on facebook better put my stuff there.

[wmw999 2,122]

They're so very different. Facebook is meant to create a sense of community and attract users to that community. The "dot.com" portion of the web is far richer in its ability to hold, share, and help one organize one's information.

It's kind of like asking if the classics are passe since we now have Cliff Notes.

Yeah, we're still settling on interface and approach. I really hope that the content-poor Facebook approach isn't what we settle on.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ryoder 1,384]

The hype around FB reminds me a lot of Second Life. Anyone remember that? Lots of big clueless companies were scrambling to be part of that, and what did they get for their time/money? Sun Microsystems (where I was working at the time) actually had a person whose fulltime job was fussing with Second Life.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

They're so very different. Facebook is meant to create a sense of community and attract users to that community. The "dot.com" portion of the web is far richer in its ability to hold, share, and help one organize one's information.

It's kind of like asking if the classics are passe since we now have Cliff Notes.

Yeah, we're still settling on interface and approach. I really hope that the content-poor Facebook approach isn't what we settle on.

Wendy P.

I just wonder though if content will get richer with increased corporate usuage. There's also huge drive towards utilizing cloud software in lue of ms and that might be tipping point. Facebook with tablet might be all you need. Google is there too with Google +. Not sure which .com will win in the long run.

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

The web isn't even the new internet. If you have an IP address (Which really is only a number between 1 and 4294967295) and a TCP/IP protocol stack, there's so much more beyond port 80. You just have to go looking for it, if you dare go down that rabbit hole...

That's not really the question you're asking though, is it? I'm not giving stock advice, but personally (PERSONALLY!) I'm not keen on Facebook. Google is much more of an advertising juggernaut, and their stock price reflects that. I think facebook's desperation to perform is leading to missteps that is alienating their user base. Not that I'm seeing any more traffic on google+ because of that. And I kind of like it that way. I'm using it as more of an antisocial network at the moment.

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

The web isn't even the new internet. If you have an IP address (Which really is only a number between 1 and 4294967295) and a TCP/IP protocol stack, there's so much more beyond port 80. You just have to go looking for it, if you dare go down that rabbit hole...

That's not really the question you're asking though, is it? I'm not giving stock advice, but personally (PERSONALLY!) I'm not keen on Facebook. Google is much more of an advertising juggernaut, and their stock price reflects that. I think facebook's desperation to perform is leading to missteps that is alienating their user base. Not that I'm seeing any more traffic on google+ because of that. And I kind of like it that way. I'm using it as more of an antisocial network at the moment.

Much of it has to do with search. Content has no value if it's not seen. If firms are gaining more click throughs on facebook than their own domain then their .com will fall away. Just looking a fundumental shifts in user activity. Currently they're destroying Youtube with the front end ads, IMHO.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

My question is: why have Billvon.com when you can just as easily use Facebook/Billvon instead.

Because Bill could own Billvon.com, and control every aspect of the site. Facebook/Billvon would be owned by Facebook, and they would control it.

What you're asking is similar to print advertising vs. a catalog. Why would a company want to print their own catalog when they could just run an ad in a magazine. Even if it was a multi-page spread in a popular magazine, it's limited in it's content and circulation, and someone else controls everything else surrounding the ad. A catalog is a stand-alone publication, where the comapny in question has direct contol over every aspect.

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

It seems like dotcom domains are becoming passe. Fortune 500 is directing people to their Facebook accounts, not their websites. If this is the case FB should garner much more activity and revenue via ad sales. Just wondering if I should pick up more FB stock?

I hope so. Yesterday I finally broke even on FB again.

[theplummeter 14]

Don't get me wrong, "Just checked the cabinets to see what I should make make for dinner " written a million times is a valuable contribution to society, I just can't handle it.

I also change my political and religious beliefs every time someone misquotes a historical figure. It's a roller coaster.

When I meet women in real life I don't understand why they're not pale white with dark hair and making a duck face.

I guess I can't wait for Facebook to die. If something is really that important I can research it, call the people directly involved, show up and spend time with someone, or express my opinions to friends and coworkers I really see.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Facebook will probably be dead in a few years. All it is now is stupid e-cards, advertisements and a few pictures or updates.

People have been predicting Facebook`s death since 2007.

Probably going to live on until at least 2025-2030 (after that, then there`s a possibility it will just be a Yahoo).

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Quote

My question is: why have Billvon.com when you can just as easily use Facebook/Billvon instead.

Because Bill could own Billvon.com, and control every aspect of the site. Facebook/Billvon would be owned by Facebook, and they would control it.

What you're asking is similar to print advertising vs. a catalog. Why would a company want to print their own catalog when they could just run an ad in a magazine. Even if it was a multi-page spread in a popular magazine, it's limited in it's content and circulation, and someone else controls everything else surrounding the ad. A catalog is a stand-alone publication, where the comapny in question has direct contol over every aspect.

I understand control of content etc., but why would GM advertise seeing them on facebook in a tv commerical on NBC when they could just point people to their own domain. I'm not getting this visit us on Facebook idea. Is the cost to place content so high on their own website that they post stuff on Facebook or are they getting more responses on Facebook than their own domain?

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Don't get me wrong, "Just checked the cabinets to see what I should make make for dinner " written a million times is a valuable contribution to society, I just can't handle it.

I also change my political and religious beliefs every time someone misquotes a historical figure. It's a roller coaster.

When I meet women in real life I don't understand why they're not pale white with dark hair and making a duck face.

I guess I can't wait for Facebook to die. If something is really that important I can research it, call the people directly involved, show up and spend time with someone, or express my opinions to friends and coworkers I really see.

So cool to be analogue.
But look out, helmets complete with heads up display and earphones and rear view video cams are right around the corner as most all are walking around with their heads planted on the glass anyway.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My question is: why have Billvon.com when you can just as easily use Facebook/Billvon instead.

Because Bill could own Billvon.com, and control every aspect of the site. Facebook/Billvon would be owned by Facebook, and they would control it.

What you're asking is similar to print advertising vs. a catalog. Why would a company want to print their own catalog when they could just run an ad in a magazine. Even if it was a multi-page spread in a popular magazine, it's limited in it's content and circulation, and someone else controls everything else surrounding the ad. A catalog is a stand-alone publication, where the comapny in question has direct contol over every aspect.

I understand control of content etc., but why would GM advertise seeing them on facebook in a tv commerical on NBC when they could just point people to their own domain. I'm not getting this visit us on Facebook idea. Is the cost to place content so high on their own website that they post stuff on Facebook or are they getting more responses on Facebook than their own domain?

Do you not know how Facebook privacy works?

It has nothing to do with cost of content, it has everything to do with getting you to click a a like button so they have access to all the good information you've already given to Facebook you probably wouldn't give to a random salesman. It would show whether or not you're actually interested and capable of a purchase versus just looking at car porn.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trafficdiver 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

My question is: why have Billvon.com when you can just as easily use Facebook/Billvon instead.

Because Bill could own Billvon.com, and control every aspect of the site. Facebook/Billvon would be owned by Facebook, and they would control it.

What you're asking is similar to print advertising vs. a catalog. Why would a company want to print their own catalog when they could just run an ad in a magazine. Even if it was a multi-page spread in a popular magazine, it's limited in it's content and circulation, and someone else controls everything else surrounding the ad. A catalog is a stand-alone publication, where the comapny in question has direct contol over every aspect.

I understand control of content etc., but why would GM advertise seeing them on facebook in a tv commerical on NBC when they could just point people to their own domain. I'm not getting this visit us on Facebook idea. Is the cost to place content so high on their own website that they post stuff on Facebook or are they getting more responses on Facebook than their own domain?

Do you not know how Facebook privacy works?

It has nothing to do with cost of content, it has everything to do with getting you to click a a like button so they have access to all the good information you've already given to Facebook you probably wouldn't give to a random salesman. It would show whether or not you're actually interested and capable of a purchase versus just looking at car porn.

Bingo. Now that they have gone public this is going to be a large profit center for them. Much larger than what Google makes from the clicks they sell to their advertisers. IMHO.

Remember when you could buy FB for $25?

[theplummeter 14]

Quote

Quote

Don't get me wrong, "Just checked the cabinets to see what I should make make for dinner " written a million times is a valuable contribution to society, I just can't handle it.

I also change my political and religious beliefs every time someone misquotes a historical figure. It's a roller coaster.

When I meet women in real life I don't understand why they're not pale white with dark hair and making a duck face.

I guess I can't wait for Facebook to die. If something is really that important I can research it, call the people directly involved, show up and spend time with someone, or express my opinions to friends and coworkers I really see.

So cool to be analogue.
But look out, helmets complete with heads up display and earphones and rear view video cams are right around the corner as most all are walking around with their heads planted on the glass anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I love technology and take advantage of every bit of it that I can. Aviation especially has been changing recently but still needs to make better use of what's available. I just can't stand the useless bullshit that dominates the internet via Facebook.

[Akokisa 0]

Quote

Quote

Today Facebook feels like it's the face of the Internet, but that will inevitably change.

Wasn't that long ago when AOL felt like that.

Compuserve will make a come-back!