The New Facebook Redesign: The Beginning of The End?

16 Sep 2008 - 1:43pm
5 years ago
129 replies
3815 reads
Sharon Greenfield5
2008

What say you, people of IXDA?

What say you of the new Facebook design?

What of the usability of this new look? What of the spacing? Is it
efficient? Are the tabs necessary? Or did you like to, with just one
look, understand a person's personal and professional life completely?

More importantly, with the myriad of complaints of said new design,
will this bring the downfall of Facebook here in the US? Into the
halls of history along with Tribe, Friendster, Orkut?

Comments

23 Sep 2008 - 10:11am
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Sep 23, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Kontra wrote:

> Perhaps there's a parallel universe where "business" success means
> something
> other than shareholders in a company getting satisfaction, but I'm not
> living in it. Separating "business success" from "shareholder
> success" is so
> much gobbledygook, I'm afraid.

Ah... Kontra has spoken!

Seriously though... is there a reason you don't use your real name?
This is supposed to be a professional forum. If you are so adamant
about your opinions being coorect, you might want to at least
attribute them to something credible.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

23 Sep 2008 - 2:27pm
Kontra
2007

> If the end game for the investors is merely further investment, yes they
> can cash out... but this is pretty similar to a pyramid scheme.

A company gets "investments" throughout its lifecycle, from angels to IPO to
acquisition to bonds. It makes no sense to classify a need or desire to get
"investment" as a pyramid scheme. Are you saying Skype is/was a pyramid
scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the "scheme" of the founders and
shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon as they
can?

> If all that really happens is the final round of investors pay a lot for
> company that provides no end user value, then the company would hardly be
> considered a success.

If a company pays too much, that's their problem. Nobody holds a gun to
their head. One way to make a company attractive to potential investors,
acquirers, IPO, etc is to make it provide good customer value -- a built-in,
countervailing force.

> And we are talking about the success of the company, not the profiteering
> of the founders.
>

When has investors getting a return on their investments become
"profiteering"?

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

23 Sep 2008 - 3:10pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Kontra,

You are confusing the company and the product. You are further
confusing getting rich, with profit. And the discussion was centered
upon profit as a measure of success. I can not for the life of me see
how you could consider either a product, or a company successful
without some sort of revenue generation or profit metric.

Yes, you would certainly consider their 'business plan' a success if
the end goal or exit strategy was to be aquired and for the
owners/investors to bank some cash. But that's not what we are talking
about here.

Mark

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Kontra <counternotions at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If the end game for the investors is merely further investment, yes they
>> can cash out... but this is pretty similar to a pyramid scheme.
>
>
> A company gets "investments" throughout its lifecycle, from angels to IPO to
> acquisition to bonds. It makes no sense to classify a need or desire to get
> "investment" as a pyramid scheme. Are you saying Skype is/was a pyramid
> scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the "scheme" of the founders and
> shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon as they
> can?
>
>
>> If all that really happens is the final round of investors pay a lot for
>> company that provides no end user value, then the company would hardly be
>> considered a success.
>
>
> If a company pays too much, that's their problem. Nobody holds a gun to
> their head. One way to make a company attractive to potential investors,
> acquirers, IPO, etc is to make it provide good customer value -- a built-in,
> countervailing force.
>
>
>> And we are talking about the success of the company, not the profiteering
>> of the founders.
>>
>
> When has investors getting a return on their investments become
> "profiteering"?
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

23 Sep 2008 - 3:19pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Sep 23, 2008, at 12:27 PM, Kontra wrote:

> A company gets "investments" throughout its lifecycle, from angels
> to IPO to
> acquisition to bonds. It makes no sense to classify a need or desire
> to get
> "investment" as a pyramid scheme. Are you saying Skype is/was a
> pyramid
> scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the "scheme" of the
> founders and
> shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon
> as they
> can?

Why on earth are you quoting investments?

Also, given your thinking on this subject, I have to presume that
since you feel getting bought out is a legitimate business model, then
you probably also presume feel that playing roulette is a legit income
stream. I mean... the chance of you laying out a couple large on black
20 and hitting it for the big pay off is probably better than getting
your company bought by a bigger company for grossly inflated valuations.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

23 Sep 2008 - 3:20pm
Kontra
2007

> I can not for the life of me see
> how you could consider either a product, or a company successful
> without some sort of revenue generation or profit metric.
>

It's quite simple: YouTube, the product, has been one of the most
spectacularly successful and consumer-appreciated products in the history of
the web. YouTube, the company, has been a tremendous success in getting
itself sold to Google for $1.65 billion. YouTube founders and investors have
been very happy. I haven't heard the acquirer, Google, say they are unhappy
with their purchase. YouTube hasn't made any profits. And you think YouTube
is a failure?

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

23 Sep 2008 - 5:43pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Kontra wrote:

> Are you saying Skype is/was a pyramid
> scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the "scheme" of the
> founders and
> shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon
> as they
> can?

With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the
same investment again?

Jared

23 Sep 2008 - 8:23pm
Anonymous

Just a quick note:
Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies they
absolve.
They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Kontra wrote:
>
> Are you saying Skype is/was a pyramid
>> scheme because they sold to eBay? Even if the "scheme" of the founders and
>> shareholders were to sell their company to a larger entity as soon as they
>> can?
>>
>
> With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the same
> investment again?
>
> Jared
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
Brett Lutchman
Web Slinger.

23 Sep 2008 - 8:27pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:

> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the
> companies they
> absolve.
> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.

I have no idea what that actually means.

23 Sep 2008 - 8:35pm
Alvin Woon
2007

best response of the week on this mailing list!
*still laughing*

- Alvin

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
>
> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies
>> they
>> absolve.
>> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
>>
>
> I have no idea what that actually means.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

23 Sep 2008 - 8:37pm
Anonymous

Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies they
absolve.
They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.

I have no idea what that actually means. - Jared Spool.

It's very simple. I don't know why you would have 'no idea what that
actually means.'
Google thinks very, very big. They are thinking of 2 things.
1. Mine data from users
2. Slow, steady and sure profit

When Google buys out companies, they'll take a hit (like most wise
companies) if they have to to ensure a steady and sure thing.
Even if it means not making an immediate profit.
'Investment' is the word I'm looking for.

--
Brett Lutchman
Web Slinger.

23 Sep 2008 - 8:40pm
Anonymous

?

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Alvin Woon <alvinwoon at gmail.com> wrote:

> best response of the week on this mailing list!
> *still laughing*
>
> - Alvin
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
>>
>> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies
>>> they
>>> absolve.
>>> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what that actually means.
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
>

--
Brett Lutchman
Web Slinger.

23 Sep 2008 - 9:23pm
Tim Au Yeung
2008

*chuckles*

The confusion doesn't stem from the concept (which is merely another way
of expressing monopolist behavior) but the usage of the word "absolve".

Unless Google's truly gone off the deep end, I doubt they've been going
around forgiving companies ("what -- you're part of the dot-com bust? 30
Hail Mary's and go and sin no more...")

Tim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Au Yeung
Manager, Digital Object Repository Technology
Libraries and Cultural Resources
University of Calgary
ytau(at)ucalgary.ca
403.220.8975

Brett Lutchman wrote:
> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies they
> absolve.
> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
>
> I have no idea what that actually means. - Jared Spool.
>
> It's very simple. I don't know why you would have 'no idea what that
> actually means.'
> Google thinks very, very big. They are thinking of 2 things.
> 1. Mine data from users
> 2. Slow, steady and sure profit
>
> When Google buys out companies, they'll take a hit (like most wise
> companies) if they have to to ensure a steady and sure thing.
> Even if it means not making an immediate profit.
> 'Investment' is the word I'm looking for.
>
>
>

23 Sep 2008 - 9:39pm
Anonymous

Ahh! I see! In my church the word literally means "To own". Many people
don't know this but the infant baptism literally meant "To own birthright"
(the early Roman Empire did this to own the citizenship of the countries and
people it occupied) The word has evolved to 'forgiveness'. But it really
means 'to own' or 'declare ownership'
I'm to tired right now so I'll do my Hail Mary's in the morning.
*: )*

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Tim Au Yeung <ytau at ucalgary.ca> wrote:

> *chuckles*
>
> The confusion doesn't stem from the concept (which is merely another way of
> expressing monopolist behavior) but the usage of the word "absolve".
>
> Unless Google's truly gone off the deep end, I doubt they've been going
> around forgiving companies ("what -- you're part of the dot-com bust? 30
> Hail Mary's and go and sin no more...")
>
> Tim
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Au Yeung
> Manager, Digital Object Repository Technology
> Libraries and Cultural Resources
> University of Calgary
> ytau(at)ucalgary.ca
> 403.220.8975
>
>
>
>
> Brett Lutchman wrote:
>
>> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the companies
>> they
>> absolve.
>> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.
>>
>> I have no idea what that actually means. - Jared Spool.
>>
>> It's very simple. I don't know why you would have 'no idea what that
>> actually means.'
>> Google thinks very, very big. They are thinking of 2 things.
>> 1. Mine data from users
>> 2. Slow, steady and sure profit
>>
>> When Google buys out companies, they'll take a hit (like most wise
>> companies) if they have to to ensure a steady and sure thing.
>> Even if it means not making an immediate profit.
>> 'Investment' is the word I'm looking for.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
Brett Lutchman
Web Slinger.

23 Sep 2008 - 9:45pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

Apparently, not a disciple of Webster.

On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:

> Ahh! I see! In my church the word literally means "To own".
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Tim Au Yeung <ytau at ucalgary.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> The confusion doesn't stem from the concept (which is merely
>> another way of
>> expressing monopolist behavior) but the usage of the word "absolve".
>>
>>
>> Brett Lutchman wrote:
>>
>>> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the
>>> companies
>>> they
>>> absolve.
>>> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and
>>> services.

23 Sep 2008 - 9:09pm
Kontra
2007

> With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the same
> investment again?
>

So now all M&A has to be done under 20/20 vision? Some business decisions go
south. Imagine that!

As I have said many times already, we're not discussing the shrewdness or
gullibility of the acquirer, but the success of a company (to be acquired).
Skype shareholders couldn't care less what eBay could/should have done.
Their interest/responsibility is to their own company. If you recall there
were multiple companies interested in Skype at the time. Skype did fine.
(eBay not so well.)

If you want to discuss how Meg Witman was sleep-walking in the last three
years of her tenure at eBay, I'd be glad to.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

23 Sep 2008 - 8:45pm
j.scot
2008

yeah.. I was thinking the same thing, and, in fact -- just to be sure
I wasn't having a Sarah Palin moment -- forwarded the statement to
someone who orchestrates such deals between the facebooks and the
googles of the world, and he said, "That doesn't make sense, and what
it's trying to imply is inaccurate."

On Sep 23, 2008, at 6:27 PM, Jared Spool wrote:

On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:23 PM, Brett Lutchman wrote:

> Google has no plans on making an immediate profit off of the
> companies they
> absolve.
> They are buying out all major 'virtual domain' property and services.

I have no idea what that actually means.
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

24 Sep 2008 - 4:41am
Anonymous

Apparently, not a disciple of Webster.

Maybe, Maybe not, the English language has crumbled so much that many
definitions have been lost. I'll explain.
Absolve- You simply think it's forgiveness or remission of sin.
The word actually means: To declare ownership.
Long, long ago, not in a galaxy far, far away, the term 'Slave' was an
actual job position. These days if I say slave, people immediately think of
whites oppressing blacks.
If you were to owe me a sum of money but couldn't pay back, you would either
be thrown in jail, would have to borrow from someone else to pay me back,
sell what you have to pay me back or you could serve me to pay off your debt
to me. If you chose to be my servant, I would legally 'own' you as an
employee.
The term 'absolve' meant I'm taking ownership of you and acquiring your
services in order for you to pay back what you owed me.
Once the debt was paid off, you had 2 choices, you can either go back to
being an independent person or you could enlist for another term as a slave,
but this time you would be making a profit.
Often times, the relationship of the borrower to the lender grew in these
times that the borrower ended up staying with the lender and began to
generate a profit.
Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it actually
doesnt. It simply meant you were paying your debt off with your services
with an employee status.
Same thing today, If I'm a big company and I buy you out, I'm buying your
good and bad. I'm buying out your business, services and debt. I've absolved
your corporation and everything you have accomplished to date. This is
really not that big of a deal. Other words could be used instead of absolve.

24 Sep 2008 - 5:31am
Jared M. Spool
2003

> Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it
> actually doesnt.

And by "people", you meant "every dictionary." http://tinyurl.com/3kggqo

Ok. Let's say "absolve" means "to own" in your galaxy. I still have no
idea what you're talking about.

Jared

On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:41 AM, Brett Lutchman wrote:

> Apparently, not a disciple of Webster.
>
> Maybe, Maybe not, the English language has crumbled so much that
> many definitions have been lost. I'll explain.
> Absolve- You simply think it's forgiveness or remission of sin.
> The word actually means: To declare ownership.
> Long, long ago, not in a galaxy far, far away, the term 'Slave' was
> an actual job position. These days if I say slave, people
> immediately think of whites oppressing blacks.
> If you were to owe me a sum of money but couldn't pay back, you
> would either be thrown in jail, would have to borrow from someone
> else to pay me back, sell what you have to pay me back or you could
> serve me to pay off your debt to me. If you chose to be my servant,
> I would legally 'own' you as an employee.
> The term 'absolve' meant I'm taking ownership of you and acquiring
> your services in order for you to pay back what you owed me.
> Once the debt was paid off, you had 2 choices, you can either go
> back to being an independent person or you could enlist for another
> term as a slave, but this time you would be making a profit.
> Often times, the relationship of the borrower to the lender grew in
> these times that the borrower ended up staying with the lender and
> began to generate a profit.
> Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it
> actually doesnt. It simply meant you were paying your debt off with
> your services with an employee status.
> Same thing today, If I'm a big company and I buy you out, I'm buying
> your good and bad. I'm buying out your business, services and debt.
> I've absolved your corporation and everything you have accomplished
> to date. This is really not that big of a deal. Other words could be
> used instead of absolve.

24 Sep 2008 - 5:34am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Kontra wrote:

>> With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the
>> same
>> investment again?
>>
>
> So now all M&A has to be done under 20/20 vision? Some business
> decisions go
> south. Imagine that!

Ok. So where is Facebook going? Is it purely a flip deal where
Zuckerberg, et. al. are hoping that the inevitable M&A acquirer
doesn't do decent diligence? Or is there some semblance of a value
statement they can talk to?

Jared

24 Sep 2008 - 5:43am
Steve Baty
2009

Jared,

Everything's OK so long as the music's still playing.

2008/9/24 Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com>

>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Kontra wrote:
>
> With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the same
>>> investment again?
>>>
>>>
>> So now all M&A has to be done under 20/20 vision? Some business decisions
>> go
>> south. Imagine that!
>>
>
> Ok. So where is Facebook going? Is it purely a flip deal where Zuckerberg,
> et. al. are hoping that the inevitable M&A acquirer doesn't do decent
> diligence? Or is there some semblance of a value statement they can talk to?
>
> Jared
>
>

24 Sep 2008 - 5:47am
SemanticWill
2007

Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated value
streams on social networks? For those interested - it does provide a good
understanding about exactly why MS payed what they did for Facebook.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Kontra wrote:
>
> With what they know today, do you really think eBay would make the same
>>> investment again?
>>>
>>>
>> So now all M&A has to be done under 20/20 vision? Some business decisions
>> go
>> south. Imagine that!
>>
>
> Ok. So where is Facebook going? Is it purely a flip deal where Zuckerberg,
> et. al. are hoping that the inevitable M&A acquirer doesn't do decent
> diligence? Or is there some semblance of a value statement they can talk to?
>
> Jared
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.128 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill | gtalk: wkevans4
twitter: semanticwill | skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 Sep 2008 - 6:06am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Will Evans wrote:

> Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
> discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated
> value streams on social networks? For those interested - it does
> provide a good understanding about exactly why MS payed what they
> did for Facebook.

I think Shuen's work is brilliant. However, all I see with the MS
investment is a Google/Yahoo-acquisition blocker.

Any attempts that Facebook has made to produce value beyond selling
virtual gifts and poor-response CPM ads has been rebuffed by the users.

I don't see how the value of the user relationships turns into capital
for the business.

It's possible I'm just dense about this and everyone else gets it. But
to me, it feels a bit like the house of cards that's been holding up
the mortgage biz for the past 6 years.

Jared

24 Sep 2008 - 6:23am
SemanticWill
2007

No - I agree that even while having read Shuen's book and understanding her
economic model around user generated value streams - I agree that at least
for facebook, they haven't found the model by which they can actually turn
that value into cash flow - clearly, at least DaveM has stated - there is
value to the members, and there is value in the network - but no business
model seems to have emmerged (Can business models simply emerge from a
primordial ooze?) Until a viable business model is conceived that can
transform the value of the network and generate positive cash flow - it
ain't really a business, or at least a viable one - and I think you are
right on when you state that it may have been a strategic decision for MS
(who can throw money away) to invest purely to block google - that actually
makes sense.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Will Evans wrote:
>
> Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
>> discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated value
>> streams on social networks? For those interested - it does provide a good
>> understanding about exactly why MS payed what they did for Facebook.
>>
>
> I think Shuen's work is brilliant. However, all I see with the MS
> investment is a Google/Yahoo-acquisition blocker.
>
> Any attempts that Facebook has made to produce value beyond selling virtual
> gifts and poor-response CPM ads has been rebuffed by the users.
>
> I don't see how the value of the user relationships turns into capital for
> the business.
>
> It's possible I'm just dense about this and everyone else gets it. But to
> me, it feels a bit like the house of cards that's been holding up the
> mortgage biz for the past 6 years.
>
>
> Jared
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.128 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill | gtalk: wkevans4
twitter: semanticwill | skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 Sep 2008 - 7:20am
Anonymous

ok.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:

> Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it actually
>> doesnt.
>>
>
>
> And by "people", you meant "every dictionary." http://tinyurl.com/3kggqo
>
> Ok. Let's say "absolve" means "to own" in your galaxy. I still have no idea
> what you're talking about.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:41 AM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
>
> Apparently, not a disciple of Webster.
>>
>> Maybe, Maybe not, the English language has crumbled so much that many
>> definitions have been lost. I'll explain.
>> Absolve- You simply think it's forgiveness or remission of sin.
>> The word actually means: To declare ownership.
>> Long, long ago, not in a galaxy far, far away, the term 'Slave' was an
>> actual job position. These days if I say slave, people immediately think of
>> whites oppressing blacks.
>> If you were to owe me a sum of money but couldn't pay back, you would
>> either be thrown in jail, would have to borrow from someone else to pay me
>> back, sell what you have to pay me back or you could serve me to pay off
>> your debt to me. If you chose to be my servant, I would legally 'own' you as
>> an employee.
>> The term 'absolve' meant I'm taking ownership of you and acquiring your
>> services in order for you to pay back what you owed me.
>> Once the debt was paid off, you had 2 choices, you can either go back to
>> being an independent person or you could enlist for another term as a slave,
>> but this time you would be making a profit.
>> Often times, the relationship of the borrower to the lender grew in these
>> times that the borrower ended up staying with the lender and began to
>> generate a profit.
>> Nowadays, people assume absolve means being 'forgiven', but it actually
>> doesnt. It simply meant you were paying your debt off with your services
>> with an employee status.
>> Same thing today, If I'm a big company and I buy you out, I'm buying your
>> good and bad. I'm buying out your business, services and debt. I've absolved
>> your corporation and everything you have accomplished to date. This is
>> really not that big of a deal. Other words could be used instead of absolve.
>>
>
>

--
Brett Lutchman
Web Slinger.

24 Sep 2008 - 3:11pm
Damon Dimmick
2008

This is actually an issue I've been grappling with as it is deeply
relevant to our industry.

A lot of our work these days is done for companies basing their business
plans on social networking and community building sites. This may be a
small slice of the work available to IxD people, but it is a significant
bit.

Are we in fact nearing a watershed moment similar to the mortgage crisis
(that Jared so appropriately sited) in which a lot of people will just
wake up and go "wait, there's no huge value in this, what are we doing?"
and thereby pull the carpet out from under a significant part of the web?

Again, it gives me TulipMania worries: http://tinyurl.com/jo2l9
>
>
> It's possible I'm just dense about this and everyone else gets it. But
> to me, it feels a bit like the house of cards that's been holding up
> the mortgage biz for the past 6 years.
>
> Jared
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

24 Sep 2008 - 4:03pm
Kontra
2007

> Ok. So where is Facebook going?

The same place where lots of people (including VCs who couldn't be bothered
with doing "decent diligence" then) looked at Google a few years ago and
likely said, "bleh, it's just another search engine, is there some semblance
of a value statement they can talk to?" And then that search engine was
coupled to advertising to become the biggest wealth creation engine on the
internets ever.

Google extracts value out of mining network effects (PageRank) which is
increasingly the primary source of revenue for smart companies. FaceBook has
in just a few years managed to create the largest social network. If you
don't think that's going to make FB shareholders happy one day, then just
ignore it.

--
Kontra
http://counternotions.com

24 Sep 2008 - 5:39pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Kontra wrote:

> Google extracts value out of mining network effects (PageRank) which
> is
> increasingly the primary source of revenue for smart companies.
> FaceBook has
> in just a few years managed to create the largest social network. If
> you
> don't think that's going to make FB shareholders happy one day, then
> just
> ignore it.

Yah, ok. You don't either.

:)

Jared

24 Sep 2008 - 5:41pm
netwiz
2010

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:47:11 -0400, Will wrote:

>
>Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
>discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated value
>streams on social networks? For those interested - it does provide a good
>understanding about exactly why MS payed what they did for Facebook.

I haven't, but some may also be interested in a book published in
1997, called Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities.
I think it was ahead of its time.
http://tinyurl.com/42brtx

* Nick Gassman - Usability and Standards Manager - http://ba.com *

27 Sep 2008 - 7:35pm
Steve Baty
2009

Those of us interested in this topic might be interested in
http://silkcharm.blogspot.com/2008/09/social-media-monetization-and-revenue.htmlin
which Laurel surveys the landscape of social media and looks at the
ways
in which they are being monetized.

Regards
Steve

2008/9/25 Nick Gassman <nick at netwiz.demon.co.uk>

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:47:11 -0400, Will wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone else read Amy Shuen's Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and her
> >discussion about Facebook and the the monetization of user generated value
> >streams on social networks? For those interested - it does provide a good
> >understanding about exactly why MS payed what they did for Facebook.
>
> I haven't, but some may also be interested in a book published in
> 1997, called Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities.
> I think it was ahead of its time.
> http://tinyurl.com/42brtx
>
> * Nick Gassman - Usability and Standards Manager - http://ba.com *
> ________________________________________________________________
>
>

Syndicate content Get the feed