FB buys instagram

• hoops23

  

  Laley23;1140646 wrote:Twitter =/= FaceBook.
  
  The two simply cannot be compared. They are completely different forms of Social Media.

  They may be different, but you can still base a personal opinion on which is the better form of social media.
• chicago510

  

  Pick6;1140628 wrote:no reason to fix something if it isnt broke.

  Look at their financials. They haven't been able to turn their popularity into revenues. They are going to be very broke if they don't fix that.
• chicago510

  

  [LEFT]What did they do in 2011 — when Facebook is reported to have done $4 billion? According to eMarketer, Twitter did $139.5 million in 2011.
  With all due respect to Dick Costolo, Twitter’s CEO, that sucks.[/LEFT]

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/31/why-are-twitters-revenues-so-puny-time-to-grow-up/
• hoops23

  

  With as many users Twitter has, the revenue certainly does suck.
• Laley23

  

  hoops23;1140650 wrote:They may be different, but you can still base a personal opinion on which is the better form of social media.

  But its like me saying that Comedy Central is better than ESPN. They arent trying to do the same thing, so why compare them.
  
  Other than both being labeled Social Media, there arent really any similarities. They are doing different things. You may not like FaceBook, but I dont know what Twitter being good has to do with it.
• hoops23

  

  Laley23;1140661 wrote:But its like me saying that Comedy Central is better than ESPN. They arent trying to do the same thing, so why compare them.
  
  Other than both being labeled Social Media, there arent really any similarities. They are doing different things. You may not like FaceBook, but I dont know what Twitter being good has to do with it.

  Well, I prefer to use Twitter over FaceBook, so that would make Twitter > FaceBook to me. I don't think anybody is comparing their uses, more so which medium they prefer to use in general.
  
  And CC and ESPN are both television channels on cable, so that comparison actually works. It's like saying you prefer to watch comedy to sports. I don't think you have to compare two identical entities to decide what you like better.
  
  For instance, you could say Pepsi > Beer. Both are beverages, but very different.
• chicago510

  

  I agree with both of you actually. Very different entities, each has their own niche, slightly different demographics, but both competing to make money and be relevant.
  
  And people might like Twitter better (seems to be sentiment of my demo), but right now Facebook is winning ($ wise). But they did have a large headstart.
• hoops23

  

  The marketing of FaceBook alone trumps anything Twitter could do right now.
• Pick6

  

  chicago510;1140652 wrote:Look at their financials. They haven't been able to turn their popularity into revenues. They are going to be very broke if they don't fix that.

  Personally, I dont really care how much of a profit Twitter has, as long as they are still running. All I care about it being able to use it, and I like how it is set up now. Facebook on the other hand with all of their revenue to play with makes so many little changes and ruins it.
• sjmvsfscs08

  I just wish Google+ would finally take off. It's superior to Facebook.
• hoops23

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1140741 wrote:I just wish Google+ would finally take off. It's superior to Facebook.

  Yep.
• End of Line

  

  
• se-alum

  

  Classyposter58;1140649 wrote:I recently deleted my facebook. I think twitter is far more beneficial and hasn't been destroyed by high schoolers and people trying to hook up online

  Never understood this train of thought, you have complete control over what you want to see.
• Skyhook79

  

  What is facebook?
• WebFire

  hoops23;1140650 wrote:They may be different, but you can still base a personal opinion on which is the better form of social media.

  Which is better, dictionary or thesaurus?
• WebFire

  sjmvsfscs08;1140741 wrote:I just wish Google+ would finally take off. It's superior to Facebook.

  Meh. I don't think so. And if it was superior, it would take off. Just like Facebook left Myspace in the dust.
• dlazz

  WebFire;1140784 wrote: And if it was superior, it would take off.

  It is superior, it just got there too late. I do still use it, but it does require a certain niche for it to be practical.
• krambman

  

  se-alum;1140774 wrote:Never understood this train of thought, you have complete control over what you want to see.

  I've never understood it either. Facebook is for online social interactions with people that you know. Twitter is for getting new and updates for people that (for the most part) you don't know.
• WebFire

  dlazz;1140795 wrote:It is superior, it just got there too late. I do still use it, but it does require a certain niche for it to be practical.

  If it was superior it wouldn't matter. How many years was Myspace in place before Facebook was made publicly available?
• sleeper

  

  Myspace ruined itself because it was terrible and had to many ads. Once Facebook goes public and is forced to show revenue growth to appease its shareholders, they will ad more advertisements, which will turn off users and users will flock to G+.
  
  Facebook has almost capped its potential and you can tell its desperate for growth already by acquiring a company for double what it was worth. They are going down, book it.
• thavoice

  sleeper;1140849 wrote:Myspace ruined itself because it was terrible and had to many ads. Once Facebook goes public and is forced to show revenue growth to appease its shareholders, they will ad more advertisements, which will turn off users and users will flock to G+.
  
  Facebook has almost capped its potential and you can tell its desperate for growth already by acquiring a company for double what it was worth. They are going down, book it.

  I dont agree with you very much but I think I may in this instance.
  
  The price they paid seems like waaaaaaaayyy too much, and soon something is gonna give.
  
  
  KInda reminds me of when sirius and xm radio were paying hundreds of millions of dollars for the rights to carry certain sports and channels, like Oprah, Stern, etc. Neither could afford to do so and had been playing pretty much with monopoly money for a long time. They have since merged and I doubt they still are making any money.
  
  They paid STern an amazingly alot of money, and to be honest with ya has anyone really heard much from him since?
  
  I dont use FB very often......but my wife and stepdaughter...well...that is their whole lives and I guess maybe their over indulgance in it has really soured my opinion of it.
• WebFire

  sleeper;1140849 wrote:Myspace ruined itself because it was terrible and had to many ads. Once Facebook goes public and is forced to show revenue growth to appease its shareholders, they will ad more advertisements, which will turn off users and users will flock to G+.
  
  Facebook has almost capped its potential and you can tell its desperate for growth already by acquiring a company for double what it was worth. They are going down, book it.

  I don't disagree. And at that time G+ will be superior and people will leave FB for it. But that is not here yet.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  GOONx19;1140163 wrote:Magic Johnson will buy it for $2 billion.

  This made me laugh out loud.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  sjmvsfscs08;1140741 wrote:I just wish Google+ would finally take off. It's superior to Facebook.

  Reps.
• Glory Days

  

  WebFire;1140784 wrote:Meh. I don't think so. And if it was superior, it would take off. Just like Facebook left Myspace in the dust.

  WebFire;1140839 wrote:If it was superior it wouldn't matter. How many years was Myspace in place before Facebook was made publicly available?

  reps