Apple CEO gives up $75 million in dividend income

twolf1 · 2012-05-25T14:52:18.730300+00:00

It's easy to turn down money if you have enough of it to pay for the lives of yourself, your children, your grandchildren and their grandchildren.

twolf1 · 2012-05-25T14:51:20.689717+00:00

If it was Steve Jobs, the title of this post would be "Steve Jobs gives up $75 million in dividend income"

Billistic · 1 day

I apologize but I am not going to continue this, I think you don't really understand what I am trying to explain here. And no, Facebook Mobile is far from what I have in mind. Just get back to me in five years time and you will understand. Facebook is doing mobile wrong, in fact all social networks that are trying to deploy desktop-web model on mobile are doing it wrong.

Billistic · 1 day

No actually it's not a great success from their perspective either. You are only looking at one thing here. If the investors idea was to cash out and not care about Facebook or what happens to it, then yes, it was a great success with an exclamation point.

But if you look at other companies that have gone public and have increased their value and importance in time - Google, Facebook - then this is a company that Facebook might never join now, despite having a potential to do just that not too long ago if they would have played their cards right.

Facebook will be forever known as the most successful startup of our time, but it won't be known for anything other than that. And their IPO will be known as their exit strategy.

Smart person would invest in Google now, especially after Oracle failing to get any damages and making Google look like the good guy in innovation and tech development. Even their silly PR related to their glass project carries more potential than anything Facebook has done.

Mark my words, the next 'social network' will be built on mobile, not on desktop and web anymore. If you are working on projects like this, contact me and let me know, I might be up for some investments.

Billistic · 1 day

FB made a fortune. But everyone who bought the stocks have lost money. That makes their whole going public thing a serious flop. I never said that Facebook itself is a flop. It is not.

janedruppi · 2 days

The technique shown in the link is not caching. AJAX should ALWAYS take browser caching into account. This simply always caches the response, it doesn't achieve anything.

Browser caching has been around for years and developers should know how to handle it. Even jQuery cache flag should not 'technically' be used at all.

When a browser, without any cache whatsoever, sends a request to the server, then server sends data back to browser. In that returned response should be cache-related headers that tell the browser how long browser should store the response for that request.

Browser stores cache entirely based on URL and it usually does not store cache at all if it is a result of a POST request.

When browser requests that same URL again, even though it has cache in browser history for that request, it also sends a 'if modified' timestamp.

Server will get the request and can check, without additional processing, if result of that request is different based on if modified header. (There's also ETag for it, Google for those keywords to know more).

If server realizes that the response has not changed, it simply tells browser to use cache (with not modified header). This keeps the request and response very small and short, since server does not calculate anything more than that. If browser realizes that data has changed, it returns new data to browser.

Essentially servers and browsers already have the complete set of tools for building caching for various purposes. AJAX is no different from regular web page requests in that regard and should not be treated differently.

janedruppi · 2 days

AJAX caching is exactly the same as any regular page request caching in browser. Same headers and same exact rules apply. So if your web service and API take this into account and return proper headers, then everything will be alright. Same is true for caching your regular web page requests.

I now also checked the link OP posted and am in epic wonderment why was such junk posted to /r/programming/ to begin with. The suggested caching is not just stupid, but the example is entirely clueless. I feel sorry for 'Steve, the Founder and Editor-in-chief of Web Developer Juice, web developer with 4 years of experience in CSS, HTML, PHP and javascript.'

Billistic · 2 days

I wonder who did NOT see that happen? Obviously media was completely biased in this - with their cute little Facebook going public - but I don't know anyone who did not see it coming that Facebook's value will drop immensely the moment it goes IPO.

I mean, seriously. It's a social network that has been struggling for a little more than a year now post its peak, unable to make an impact on mobile despite attempts to do so.

Their phone partnerships have not really worked out all that well (remember the phones with FB buttons?).
They earn close to 0 dollars from users of mobile Facebook. They cannot advertise on mobile either, since if that happens, people would start using Facebook applications that use FB API to pull in information and not show ads.
Their attempts to carry HTML5 are held back by mobile software development, where neither iPhone nor Android phones really have a solid performance on HTML5 apps compared to native.
Differently from Apple and Google, Facebook has nothing going for it outside it's website and userbase. That's a tough situation to be in, since every user that leaves affects both that users activity in the network as well as activity of all of their friends (people join because their friends are there and leave if they are not). This is different from someone ditching iPhone or stopping to use Google Search - only that single person is affected.
Biggest thing Facebook has introduced in a year is Timeline. And most people do not like Timeline even today - after it has been around for months. I don't 'like' to visit peoples profiles anymore since they look too different and cluttered (two columns of timeline data is just a stupid design decision that Apple nor Google would never have made).
Companies have a hard time engaging fans on Facebook, while there are some success stories, majority of companies just do it wrong, which in turn makes companies doubt the effectiveness of the platform more. Campaigns that used to be very beneficial for companies (such as 'share this to X' or share-based advertising games) have been banned or its alternatives are easily blocked by users.

Facebook should have gone public a year ago and this would not have happened. It would have still been in its peak. Then it would have been milked for all its worth in that year and people would not necessarily call it a flop.

But it is: a flop. A first notable and negative milestone in the history of the most successful startup company in mass media and internet.

whatevrmn · 3 days

Essentially AMC wants to pay the cast and crew one seasons worth, and milk it for two seasons of advertising. It's twice as many premieres and twice as many finales, plus twice the hype. They can say that last season starts NOW, as well as do the same thing next year.

I am surprised we don't get 4 episodes a year until 2015.

diggro · 4 days

Agreed.

diggro · 4 days

For billion dollars? If that was true, then I would be a billionaire as well. I know at least three guys who would be able to build Instagram in around months time. They didn't buy small development team for billion dollars, that would make them the most expensive development team in the history of software development.

diggro · 4 days

I don't see how that's possible. Certainly not worth one billion dollars to protect yourself from potential 'slow' threat.

diggro · 4 days

Yes and it keeps dropping for a while, though maybe not as rapidly as today by 13%. But if by acqui-hire you meant hiring Instagram developers, then I don't see that being the reason. Instagram is developed by a very small crowd and the software is primitive enough that I could have done it with any of my startup teams I'm involved with from technical standpoint. Facebook bought users, not technology. Users that they already (mostly) had.

diggro · 4 days

Possible.

diggro · 4 days

True. But they won't be. They would essentially have to do Google or Apple to pull that off, but now that they are public, it won't happen, not really. Again, my opinion.

diggro · 4 days

Yet in this case it makes no sense for them to go in public if that was true. And it seems that the hype is over, it's down 13% today. More than ten billion worth less than last Friday.

diggro · 4 days

Not really. This is because Instagram needs Facebook more than Facebook needs Instagram. Instagram would not exist without Facebook and Twitter.

diggro · 4 days

Difference being that Twitter is mostly used (on mobile) to post updates and less for reading updates. A lot of FB users browse profiles and read updates of others. The average time user spends browsing in Twitter app must be very small compared to Facebook.

diggro · 4 days

Exactly, something that Apple could have avoided had they bought it.

diggro · 4 days

Exactly. I mean, even Apple didn't buy it and Apple was de-facto owner of Instagram without paying a dime for it - every user was from iOS.

It really was one billion down the drain, Facebook could have built a just as good an alternative for far less money, also tied video-publishing with it and integrated it with their Facebook experience.

Instead they bought a good startup that generates no income for about four times its potential real price.

diggro · 4 days

Google is not in the same league here, Google has always been a multi-platform company in the broadest of meanings. This is also the biggest problem for Google - they don't really have focus. They put a lot of effort into things that are relevant 'today', but less effort on things that are not as relevant.

Their Google Chrome browser updates have become less frequent the more dominant the browser has become on the market, for example.

But because Google has a hand in more or less everything except hardware, they stay relevant.

Same is not true with Facebook. Facebook has always been a 'website company'. They have tried to expand beyond that but have failed and their biggest problem - mobile - is becoming very apparent. People love using Facebook on mobile, but Facebook is making no money from it. And the moment it is full of ads on that small screen, people will be turned off by it and will start using apps that use Facebook API and feature no ads, instead.

The only thing that Facebook has going for it that there hasn't been a good alternative out yet that has a large influx of users. Google+ is a great platform, but it is a niche platform that is entirely dominated by tech media and users, angels and startups today. G+ is not a place for your mother.

But G+ has the advantage that Google offers it as part of their larger services. It will never feature ads on mobile. And if Android becomes even more relevant and Facebook starts using more ads on mobile, it will slowly grow its userbase from the likes of common people as well.

I've been in this industry long enough to see where this is going. And I highly discourage anyone from buying Facebook stock, since it has already peaked. It will stay relevant for very many years - possibly longer than any other major startup ever has - but buying its stock won't generate you a lot of income. For that to happen, Facebook needs to expand its horizons and I don't see how that's going to happen before investors jump off the ship.

Of course this is just my opinion :)

diggro · 4 days

Anyone with at least an above average INT score knows that Facebook IPO was just a way to make the founders rich and cash in on the hype. What really changed? Zuck still owns majority of voting power, so that stays the same. Difference being that he's just a lot more rich now than before.

Who would ever want to buy their stock in that situation, is shooting themselves in the leg. Facebook has already peaked.

Mark the day of IPO as the day Facebook starts becoming less and less relevant.

b0red · 4 days

Ah Justin Bieber.

forceduse · 5 days

Well, this is not really a question that needs to be asked, since that is exactly what happens - and exactly how religion works. It's all about faith and belief in something, even if that something is founded on lies. This is not really about 'pretending', he doesn't pretend to be a spiritual guru, he -is- a spiritual guru. You can see that in the eyes of the people affected by him.

kristovaher · 8 days

Hmm, it doesn't show that for me there, but it does show list of news about Diablo 3 after I click Diablo 3 icon, one of them about 'new downloaders for English and German' and I can grab one from there I think.

If I click the 'Buy Diablo 3' option, it asks me to log in and takes me to my games, where D3 does not exist yet, thus it's not an option to download.

(I am in the EU as well)

kristovaher

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login