>That's a non-sequitor. The reasoning is the same as "Google won't be around for long; for proof, look no further than AltaVista
Difference being in everyone of your examples:
1. The product is in a near monopoly position
2. None rely on ads as a sole means of income
3. Microsoft isn't overvalued. Google will probably see a share correction soon, or at least during the next downturn.
>Users and customers can often be two disjoint sets. Broadcast TV provides significant value to its viewers, but its viewers aren't the customers; the advertisers are.
Good initial point there. Interesting though that you picked broadcast TV. It's no secret that traditional TV is losing audiences fast. In fact, you could argue that TV proves that my analogy works across mediums. Again, the big difference is that valuations are reflecting reality here, whereas this isn't the case in web land.
Google does. (Aside from products like the Google Search Appliance, which are basically negligible in revenues.)
> It's no secret that traditional TV is losing audiences fast.
Well, yeah, but it's had them for 50 years. If you wanna argue that FaceBook won't be around in 50 years, you'll get little argument from me. However, there's a good chance I won't be around in 50 years, so I also don't really care.
I thought your point is that there's a good chance FaceBook won't be around in one year. That's certainly possible, but I don't really see a case for it from the evidence you've presented. All your arguments apply to broadcast TV c. 1950, but if you'd bet that CBS would be out of business in 1951, you would've been very, very, wrong.
If you want to make the more general point that advertising-supported businesses are hurt badly in recessions - that's true, and fairly well-known throughout the financial industry. However, lots of businesses are hurt badly in recessions. In 1929, nearly the entire financial industry was wiped out - thousands of banks closed, investment trusts (the 1920s equivalent of hedge funds) disappeared and didn't reappear until the 1950s, mutual funds underwent stiff regulation, stockbrokers quit and (legend has it) committed suicide. That's far worse than what happened to the entertainment and advertising industry. Capital goods also suffer, the auto industry downsizes, construction gets hit hard, farmers foreclose on their mortgages, etc. Basically the only industries that do well are consumer staples, entertainment, and vices (alcohol/tobacco/gambling).
One of my major reasons for making the leap to entrepreneurship is that if the economy soars, I do much better with my own business, yet if the economy tanks, my job at a financial software startup is toast. If I'm screwed anyways, might as well enjoy the upside.
Google is ads, it doesn't rely on them. See AK's response to pg in this thread.
I not saying anything about Facebook's ability to survive, I'm saying it's a bad investment because it is overvalued, hence we're going to see a correction in the tech market. It seems everyone is missing that point, choosing instead to go nuts about how ad-supported models are working.
Sure they're working, they're just very vulnerable. When you've got ad-supported models that are over valued, you're even more vulnerable.
I don't think you can use the depression as any indication of what happens during a recession though. In recessions, it's possible to effectively shield oneself from a good deal of harm, whereas the depression came and found you.
I agree with you on the last para. I think you're much better of controlling your own destiny in pretty much every case, even if you lose your shirt.
>That's a non-sequitor. The reasoning is the same as "Google won't be around for long; for proof, look no further than AltaVista
Difference being in everyone of your examples:
1. The product is in a near monopoly position 2. None rely on ads as a sole means of income 3. Microsoft isn't overvalued. Google will probably see a share correction soon, or at least during the next downturn.
>Users and customers can often be two disjoint sets. Broadcast TV provides significant value to its viewers, but its viewers aren't the customers; the advertisers are.
Good initial point there. Interesting though that you picked broadcast TV. It's no secret that traditional TV is losing audiences fast. In fact, you could argue that TV proves that my analogy works across mediums. Again, the big difference is that valuations are reflecting reality here, whereas this isn't the case in web land.