I would venture that he is just a rich nerd, and even with his fame, he never knew how to dress or groom correctly to chat up the women folk. DeWolfe was the opposite.
Posted 6/30/2009 6:52 am
Do you realize you are sitting on one of the largest collections of personal information and marketing data? Why lose money when it can be sold?
Are you referring to why the company doesn't sell access to it? They do (indirectly) through targeted advertising. They can't just sell it directly to any shitbag on the street. There's a privacy policy and whatnot.
I am not sure on that, but I believe all social networking sites have a variation of the 80/20 rule, with 80% being sheep, about 5% being content creators, and 15% being content commenters.
#1: Herd mentality.
#2: More streamlined UI with less customization.
Facebook is fucked too. It just hasn't caught up to them yet. Their revenue model is worse than ours, considering you can't sell advertising space in third-world countries that will recoup the infrastructure costs.
Posted 6/30/2009 7:19 am
I just don't see social networking still being popular in a few years. Tards are slowly waking up to the value of privacy on the internets.
It's hard to tell. I don't social network due to being older. It's a bunch of non-sense to me, even though I work there. I don't text message either. I talked to people on the phone, or in person, or at a bar, but there is a large demographic of people who are content to twiddle away online to meet their needs for human connection.
There probably will always be the desire to keep somewhat in contact with distant friends and relatives, so these services will be around for a long time. I don't see any of them being long-term, highly profitable businesses though. Especially Twitter. The press getting a boner over them will only last so long.
