Comments on: Let’s Play the Social Network Valuation Game! http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/ Just another WordPress weblog Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:28:53 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Portal Developement http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-11419 Portal Developement Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:09:54 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-11419 Actually we are very much social and want to build up a social net work, face Book is one of the best example. I study your post, like it very much. Thanks. Actually we are very much social and want to build up a social net work, face Book is one of the best example. I study your post, like it very much. Thanks.

]]> By: gargouri2001 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-813 gargouri2001 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:04:25 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-813 Nice write up and blog , Thanks for sharing all those good info<br><br>My Best regards<br>Moris<br><a href="http://xtonlinegame.com">http://xtonlinegame.com</a> Nice write up and blog , Thanks for sharing all those good info

My Best regards
Moris
http://xtonlinegame.com

]]> By: Geziler http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-812 Geziler Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:08:13 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-812 thanks a lot thanks a lot

]]> By: srini kumar http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-808 srini kumar Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:04:50 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-808 I think the financial picture doesn't take into account the strategic picture. What Ballmer and Murdoch and Zuckerberg are considering is that happy social network and web application users are basically locked in. API's mean that these users won't even get quite so bored over time because third party developers and content creators will continue to keep their platforms fresh. Finally, someday the "cost-per-click" business model innovation that saved Google will be echoed with social networks. Someone's going to figure out how to monetize these things. Souls locked into platforms - that is the strategic significance of social networking. It is also close to a zero-sum game - users probably have a certain number of web 2.0 type sites they'll bother to use frequently - and that's it. There may be some evolution or disruption of this order someday, but there is also a great likelihood that it'll be like TV before cable - there will be a Big Three, and then a few independent successes, and then the long tail. Who those Big Three will turn out to be is the subject of the MS bid for Yahoo - MS will not be locked out of that brandspace, and without Yahoo it does not look good for them. I think the financial picture doesn’t take into account the strategic picture.

What Ballmer and Murdoch and Zuckerberg are considering is that happy social network and web application users are basically locked in. API’s mean that these users won’t even get quite so bored over time because third party developers and content creators will continue to keep their platforms fresh. Finally, someday the “cost-per-click” business model innovation that saved Google will be echoed with social networks. Someone’s going to figure out how to monetize these things. Souls locked into platforms – that is the strategic significance of social networking.

It is also close to a zero-sum game – users probably have a certain number of web 2.0 type sites they’ll bother to use frequently – and that’s it. There may be some evolution or disruption of this order someday, but there is also a great likelihood that it’ll be like TV before cable – there will be a Big Three, and then a few independent successes, and then the long tail. Who those Big Three will turn out to be is the subject of the MS bid for Yahoo – MS will not be locked out of that brandspace, and without Yahoo it does not look good for them.

]]> By: srini kumar http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-811 srini kumar Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:04:50 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-811 I think the financial picture doesn't take into account the strategic picture.<br><br>What Ballmer and Murdoch and Zuckerberg are considering is that happy social network and web application users are basically locked in. API's mean that these users won't even get quite so bored over time because third party developers and content creators will continue to keep their platforms fresh. Finally, someday the "cost-per-click" business model innovation that saved Google will be echoed with social networks. Someone's going to figure out how to monetize these things. Souls locked into platforms - that is the strategic significance of social networking. <br><br>It is also close to a zero-sum game - users probably have a certain number of web 2.0 type sites they'll bother to use frequently - and that's it. There may be some evolution or disruption of this order someday, but there is also a great likelihood that it'll be like TV before cable - there will be a Big Three, and then a few independent successes, and then the long tail. Who those Big Three will turn out to be is the subject of the MS bid for Yahoo - MS will not be locked out of that brandspace, and without Yahoo it does not look good for them. I think the financial picture doesn't take into account the strategic picture.

What Ballmer and Murdoch and Zuckerberg are considering is that happy social network and web application users are basically locked in. API's mean that these users won't even get quite so bored over time because third party developers and content creators will continue to keep their platforms fresh. Finally, someday the “cost-per-click” business model innovation that saved Google will be echoed with social networks. Someone's going to figure out how to monetize these things. Souls locked into platforms – that is the strategic significance of social networking.

It is also close to a zero-sum game – users probably have a certain number of web 2.0 type sites they'll bother to use frequently – and that's it. There may be some evolution or disruption of this order someday, but there is also a great likelihood that it'll be like TV before cable – there will be a Big Three, and then a few independent successes, and then the long tail. Who those Big Three will turn out to be is the subject of the MS bid for Yahoo – MS will not be locked out of that brandspace, and without Yahoo it does not look good for them.

]]> By: srini kumar http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-8803 srini kumar Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:04:50 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-8803 I think the financial picture doesn't take into account the strategic picture.<br><br>What Ballmer and Murdoch and Zuckerberg are considering is that happy social network and web application users are basically locked in. API's mean that these users won't even get quite so bored over time because third party developers and content creators will continue to keep their platforms fresh. Finally, someday the "cost-per-click" business model innovation that saved Google will be echoed with social networks. Someone's going to figure out how to monetize these things. Souls locked into platforms - that is the strategic significance of social networking. <br><br>It is also close to a zero-sum game - users probably have a certain number of web 2.0 type sites they'll bother to use frequently - and that's it. There may be some evolution or disruption of this order someday, but there is also a great likelihood that it'll be like TV before cable - there will be a Big Three, and then a few independent successes, and then the long tail. Who those Big Three will turn out to be is the subject of the MS bid for Yahoo - MS will not be locked out of that brandspace, and without Yahoo it does not look good for them. I think the financial picture doesn't take into account the strategic picture.

What Ballmer and Murdoch and Zuckerberg are considering is that happy social network and web application users are basically locked in. API's mean that these users won't even get quite so bored over time because third party developers and content creators will continue to keep their platforms fresh. Finally, someday the “cost-per-click” business model innovation that saved Google will be echoed with social networks. Someone's going to figure out how to monetize these things. Souls locked into platforms – that is the strategic significance of social networking.

It is also close to a zero-sum game – users probably have a certain number of web 2.0 type sites they'll bother to use frequently – and that's it. There may be some evolution or disruption of this order someday, but there is also a great likelihood that it'll be like TV before cable – there will be a Big Three, and then a few independent successes, and then the long tail. Who those Big Three will turn out to be is the subject of the MS bid for Yahoo – MS will not be locked out of that brandspace, and without Yahoo it does not look good for them.

]]> By: Jonathan Kleiman http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-807 Jonathan Kleiman Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:13:58 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-807 then again... when was the last time something that looked every bit like a fad got valuations of 100x their rev? then again… when was the last time something that looked every bit like a fad got valuations of 100x their rev?

]]> By: Jonathan Kleiman http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-806 Jonathan Kleiman Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:11:21 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-806 P/E ratios of 100 are pretty hard to justify without seeing a nice plan to generate revenue. I assume one exists. P/E ratios of 100 are pretty hard to justify without seeing a nice plan to generate revenue. I assume one exists.

]]> By: Jonathan Kleiman http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-810 Jonathan Kleiman Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:13:58 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-810 then again... when was the last time something that looked every bit like a fad got valuations of 100x their rev? then again… when was the last time something that looked every bit like a fad got valuations of 100x their rev?

]]> By: Jonathan Kleiman http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/comment-page-1/#comment-809 Jonathan Kleiman Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:11:21 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/02/lets-play-the-social-network-valuation-game/#comment-809 P/E ratios of 100 are pretty hard to justify without seeing a nice plan to generate revenue. I assume one exists. P/E ratios of 100 are pretty hard to justify without seeing a nice plan to generate revenue. I assume one exists.

]]>